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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT