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.














With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.
In regards to bill's comment about trusting the cover meant. We can trust them about as much as we can trust attorneys'.
This is disturbing to learn...