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

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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT