ILNews

Opinions Jan. 27, 2012

January 27, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Robert Holland, A Concerned Citizen for the Redevelopment of Gary v. Richard Steele, Barbara Steele, First Midwest Bank, As Successor Trustee By Way of Merger to Bank Calumet, N.A., et al.
45A03-1102-PL-84
Civil plenary. Affirms the trial court’s determination that Holland was not entitled to summary judgment on his quiet title claim, and grant of summary judgment to the bank on its trespass and slander of title claims. The trial court properly found that Holland had filed a frivolous lawsuit and awarded appropriate attorney fees. On cross-appeal, the appellate court denied the bank’s request for appellate attorney fees.

Bradley Bradford v. State of Indiana
59A01-1104-CR-215
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class C felony child molesting, holding that admission of caseworker testimony was a violation of Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b) and likely had a prejudicial impact on the jury. Remands for retrial.

City of Indianapolis v. Rhodora Earl
49A02-1102-PL-89
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s denial of the city’s motion for summary judgment, rejecting the city’s argument that a police officer was protected by the law enforcement provision of the Indiana Tort Claims Act when a suspect he was pursuing in a high-speed chase crashed into a woman’s car and seriously injured her. Holds that a police officer must recognize when a pursuit becomes too dangerous to continue.

In the Matter of L.L., (CHINS), K.R. S. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

52A05-1107-JC-382
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s determination that L.L. was a child in need of services.

Justin L. Hargrove v. State of Indiana (NFP)
67A01-1103-CR-112
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A felony attempted murder.

Indianapolis Education Association and President Elden Wolting v. Indianapolis Public Schools (NFP)
49A02-1101-PL-27
Civil plenary. Dismisses appeal as moot, holding no effective relief could be rendered through appeal.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.S. and A.S.; R.S. and Ja.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
33A01-1106-JT-246
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights for mother and father.

Brett Zagorac v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1011-CR-589
Criminal. On petition for rehearing, reaffirms initial opinion that any possible error in admission of evidence was harmless.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT