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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT