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

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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT