ILNews

Opinions July 27, 2011

July 27, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
James W. Miller v. State of Indiana
64A03-1008-CR-543
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A misdemeanor neglect of a vertebrate animal. The evidence is sufficient to show that Miller recklessly endangered the horses’ health by failing to provide them adequate food so as to neglect them. The trial court’s failure to appoint the state veterinarian doesn’t require the reversal of Miller’s convictions.

Alan D. Wilson v. Sisters of St. Francis Health Services
34A02-1101-CC-57
Civil collections. Affirms summary judgment to Sisters of St. Francis Health Services regarding an alleged attorney lien. Wilson does not have a valid equitable attorney fee lien on the payment made by his client’s health insurer to St. Francis. Wilson presented no evidence that a measurable benefit has been conferred on St. Francis under such circumstances that St. Francis’ retention of the insurance payment without payment of attorney fees to Wilson would be unjust.

Tomika Johnson, et al. v. David Sullivan, M.D., et al.
82A05-1102-MI-108
Miscellaneous. Reverses summary judgment for Dr. Sullivan. There is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Johnson timely filed her proposed medical malpractice complaint. Holds that evidence of mailing on a particular date, even if it contradicts a postmark, is competent to prove filing on that date for purposes of the Medical Malpractice Act. Affirms summary judgment for Sullivan on Johnson’s claims that Sullivan provided health care to the victim after Dec. 22, 2006, that the continuing wrong doctrine applies, or that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment applies. Remands for further proceedings.

Christopher Brightman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1011-CR-603
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies receiving stolen property and theft.

Rudolfo G. Rodriguez, Jr. v. Lakeview Title, LLC (NFP)
76A03-1101-PL-36
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Lakeview Title and denial of Rodriguez’s motion for summary judgment in his suit for negligence and unjust enrichment.

Derek A. Bishop v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A01-1012-CR-683
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony battery.

J.H. v. B.H. (NFP)
02A04-1010-DR-729
Domestic relation. Affirms order modifying custody in response to father J.H.’s relocation to Ohio.

Matthew William Huttle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1012-CR-634
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony battery.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT