ILNews

Opinions July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Isaac Florian and Jeffrey Florian, as limited guardian of Isaac, an adult. v. GATX Rail Corporation
91A04-1002-PL-77
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of GATX Rail Corp. in Issac Florian’s negligence claim after he drove into a GATX tank car that didn’t have retro-reflective sheeting. GATX was in compliance with either retro-reflective implementation schedule even though the train car in question didn’t have sheeting yet. Florian’s common-law negligence claim is preempted by federal regulations set forth in 49.C.F.R. part 224.

A.H. v. State of Indiana
37A04-1002-JV-50
Juvenile. Reverses adjudication A.H. committed what would be exploitation of an endangered adult as a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. The state didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A.H. took advantage of Robert Barnhart’s mental and physical condition in securing loans and the State failed to prove that A.H.’s control over Barnhart’s property was unauthorized.

Remon Duke Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-0912-CR-723
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies strangulation and domestic battery.  

Larry H. Snyder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1001-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms acceptance of guilty plea to Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Joseph Trammell v. State of Indiana
(NFP)
49A05-0912-CR-708
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

James Edward Price v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A03-1001-CR-23
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A dealing in methamphetamine.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of E.L., et al.; M.B. v. I.D.C.S.
(NFP)
48A04-0912-JV-717
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Richard West v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-0912-CR-680
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Jeffery Rowe v. State of Indiana
(NFP)
46A03-0907-CR-344
Criminal. Affirms sentence on remand of an aggregate term of 70 years for Class A felonies robbery and burglary, and finding to be a habitual offender.

Olivia Vanbuskirk v. State of Indiana
(NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1208
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

Shawn Christopher McWhorter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-0912-CR-573
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony criminal deviate conduct, and Class C felony robbery.

Andy C. Pitcher d/b/a Liberty Bell v. Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC., et al.
(NFP)
81A04-0908-CV-458
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for Berkley Risk Administrators Co. on Pitcher’s complaint alleging breach of contract.

Indiana Tax Court
Country Acres Limited Partnership v. Pleasant Township Assessor, and LaPorte County Assessor (NFP)
71T10-0903-TA-5
Tax. Affirms the Indiana Board of Tax Review didn’t err in rejecting an Indiana certified Level II assessor-appraiser’s use of an 11.35 percent capitalization rate. Reverses final determination of the market value-in-use of Country Acres’ complex and remands to the Indiana Board so it may instruct the appropriate assessing officials to assess the subject property consistent with the opinion.
 

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to 22 cases for the week ending July 16.
 

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