ILNews

Opinions July 18, 2012

July 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Annette Pittman v. State of Indiana
49A02-1112-CR-1132
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. I.C. 12-23-15-2 did not require the arresting officer, or other law enforcement personnel elsewhere, to perform an evaluation so thorough as to eliminate all other possible causes for each of the symptoms of alcoholic intoxication that Pittman exhibited.

Howard Justice v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
49A02-1112-PL-1078
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for American Family on its claim that the workers’ compensation setoff provision reduced the limits of the liability policy such that its liability under Justice’s policy was zero. After a determination of liability and damages, Justice’s damages award should be reduced by the $25,000 recovery from Wagner and the percentage of workers’ compensation benefits paid to Justice based upon Wagner’s percentage of comparative fault, up to a maximum of $25,000. Remands with instructions.

Covered Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc., Clark County, Indiana Commission, et al. v. Town of Sellersburg, Indiana
10A01-1101-PL-13
Civil plenary. Affirms ruling in favor of Sellersburg that the town’s annexation proceedings should take priority over an incorporation proceeding and the dismissal of remonstrance filed against annexation. The annexation proceeding is first in time and takes priority over the incorporation proceeding because it was validly instituted in June 2008 and Sellersburg’s initial failure to comply with the statutory notice provisions and hold a public hearing did not invalidate the annexation. Holds that the statutory remonstrance waiver requirements were substantially complied with and thus the remonstrance lacks sufficient valid signatures.

Demarco Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1109-CR-454
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Curtis L. Bass v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1110-CR-473
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony burglary and a subsequent order revoking community corrections placement and committing Bass to the DOC for six years.

In the Matter of M.W. and K.W.-N., Minor Children Alleged to be in Need of Services; M.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
34A05-1201-JC-27
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms finding that children are in need of services.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT