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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT