ILNews

Opinions Jan. 30, 2013

January 30, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Peter F. Amaya v. D. Craig Brater, M.D., in his capacity as Dean and Director of Indiana University School of Medicine; The Board of Trustees of Indiana University; et al.
49A04-1204-PL-208
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the medical school on Amaya’s claims including breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing after he was dismissed from the school. Amaya didn’t designate evidence that the school’s decision was in bad faith, arbitrary or capricious.

Matthew Banks Ashworth v. Kathryn (Ashworth) Ehrgott

49A02-1205-DR-412
Domestic relation. Reverses in part and remands with instructions to apply the income allocation factor of 0.1549 to father’s 2012 and future bonuses and correct a scrivener’s error in the April 24, 2010, income withholding order and calculate credit owed to father and its repayment method. Affirms in all other respects, including calculation of father’s 2012 and subsequent weekly child support obligations.

Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana

18A02-1204-CR-331
Criminal. Reverses conviction of failure to immediately report child abuse or neglect as a Class B misdemeanor. The state needed to present evidence which proved the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and not merely present facts which tend to arouse suspicion of guilt, in order to support a conviction and show that Smith had reason to believe, as defined by the Legislature, that G.G. was a victim of child abuse and that Smith then knowingly failed to immediately report such abuse. Judge Vaidik dissents.

Jill R. Kincer v. State of Indiana (NFP)

36A01-1207-CR-324
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

David Arndell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

82A04-1206-CR-333
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and 20-month sentence.

John D. Rogers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1208-PC-373
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Kerry L. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1111-PC-519
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Demetrius Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1205-CR-380
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

James A. Crouch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A05-1208-CR-417
Criminal. Affirms sentence following finding that Crouch violated several conditions of a drug treatment program.

Monique Rowe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1204-JM-165
Juvenile. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor failure to ensure school attendance.

Fernando Seba v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1207-CR-556
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Noah Shane Warren v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A01-1204-CR-165
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class D felony neglect of a dependent as well as a habitual offender enhancement, but reverses conviction of Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

Michael Ramos v. Robertson's Apartments (NFP)
71A03-1203-SC-107
Small claim. Grants petition for rehearing to address a point Ramos raises regarding waiver for damages in excess of the small claims jurisdictional limit and affirms original decision in all respects.

Hobert Pittman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1204-PC-158
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Kindred Nursing Centers, LTD Partnership d/b/a Wedgewood Healthcare v. Linda Davis (NFP)
93A02-1207-EX-553
Agency action. Affirms Worker’s Compensation Board’s determination that Davis’ injury arose out of her employment.

 

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT