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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT