ILNews

Opinions July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Adoption of A.M.; M.M. v. M.M. & A.C.
53A05-1002-AD-71
Adoption. Reverses denial of grandfather M.M.’s uncontested petition to adopt his biological granddaughter A.M. Based upon the reasoning in K.S.P., the idea that the best interests of the child is the primary concern in an adoption proceeding, the purposes of the adoption statutes as stated by the legislature, and the trial court’s initial determination that adoption was in the best interests of A.M., preventing the adoption in this specific case on the basis of Ind. Code Section 31-19-15-1 and Ind. Code Section 31-19-15-2 would cause an absurd result not intended by the legislature. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Najam dissents.

Brandon Vest v. State of Indiana
49A02-0912-CR-1276
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The state prosecuted Vest for only one indivisible instance of resisting law enforcement, and jurors were not required to agree on which particular officer Vest fled.

T.J. v. State of Indiana
49A04-1001-JV-8
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for animal fighting, a Class D felony if committed by an adult. The testimony from the witnesses support a reasonable inference T.J. and another boy were encouraging a larger dog to attack a smaller dog.

Anne Walterman Murphy, et al. v. William Curtis, et al.
49A04-0909-CV-503
Civil. Reverses summary judgment for Curtis and other members of the class. An administrative law judge’s refusal to consider evidence of conditions not disclosed on a Medicaid disability application doesn’t violate federal Medicaid law and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Judge Riley dissents.

Indiana Dept. of Insurance v. Robin Everhart
84A01-0912-CV-614
Civil. Reverses findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment of $1 million in favor of Everhart in her claim against the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund. It is not consistent with Supreme Court precedent to hold the fund liable for more than the increased risk of harm that the doctor caused. Remands for the trial court to recalculate its damages award and award damages to Everhart in proportion to the increase in risk of harm that was caused by the malpractice and address whether the fund is entitled to a set-off.  

Centerfield Bar Inc. v. Michael Gee, et al.
05A02-0911-CV-1070
Civil. Affirms denial in part of Centerfield Bar’s motion for summary judgment in a complaint filed by the Gees that the bar’s negligence in failing to remove or control another patron resulted in Michael’s injuries. Based on the facts set forth as evidence, Greenfield hasn’t demonstrated that the assault on Michael was not foreseeable as a matter of law.

Eric Pilipow v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1001-CR-19
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

Raymond E. Robinson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-0912-CR-692
Criminal. Affirms order revoking probation.

Joshua Orman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
11A04-1003-CR-216
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felonies burglary and aggravated battery.

Jonathan Perkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
44A05-1001-CR-11
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony robbery, Class D felony aiding in a theft, and Class B misdemeanor visiting a common nuisance.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT