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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT