Opinions Jan. 27, 2012

January 27, 2012
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.
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
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
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)

Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s determination that L.L. was a child in need of services.

Justin L. Hargrove v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A felony attempted murder.

Indianapolis Education Association and President Elden Wolting v. Indianapolis Public Schools (NFP)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights for mother and father.

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



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?