ILNews

Opinions July 8, 2013

July 8, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Cincinnati Life Insurance Company v. Marjorie Beyrer
12-2365
Civil plenary. Affirms District Court rulings against Marjorie Beyrer, widow of Kevin Beyrer, in a life insurance dispute. The court found no merit on the issues she appealed after she failed to be awarded proceeds from her husband’s life insurance policy that was assigned to a third party. Dismissal of some claims for failing to comply with federal pleading standards and summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati Life on other claims was not an abuse of discretion, the court ruled.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jason J. Klinker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A05-1301-CR-26
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentence of three years for Class D felony escape.

In Re: Paternity of B.B.; M.B. v. Y.M.M. (NFP)
71A04-1208-JP-447
Juvenile Paternity. Affirms juvenile court’s finding that M.B., the father, was in contempt for failing to pay certain childcare expenses and that, Y.M.M., the mother, was not in contempt of any court order regarding visitation.

Tharl Pinkston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
38A02-1210-CR-829
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of Pinkston’s probation.

Jeffrey Bowles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A02-1208-CR-654
Criminal. Affirms Bowles’ conviction for Class D felony domestic battery.

Edwin Valladares v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1211-CR-568
Criminal. Affirms Valladares’ convictions following a bench trial for five counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class C felony child molesting, and one count of Class B misdemeanor voyeurism.

Daniel Paul Foster v. State of Indiana (NFP)

53A01-1209-CR-414
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentencing of Foster to an aggregated 26 years executed in the Department of Correction: 20 years for Class B felony aggravated battery, three years each for the two counts of Class D felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a penal facility employee (to be served consecutively to each other and to the 20 year sentence for Class B felony aggravated battery), and one year for Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief (to be served concurrently to the other sentences).

In Re The Guardianship of Carlton H. Word; Timothy W. Word and Tracy L. Wise v. Rance Buehrer, Guardian of Carlton H. Word (NFP)
76A03-1209-GU-395
Guardianship. Affirms trial court’s judgment that under the terms of the June 4, 1998, second amendment to Carlton’s trust, the Zimmerman Farm must be distributed as part of the trust residuary, rather than as a specific bequest under the trust or pursuant to an undelivered, unrecorded deed.

Christopher Long v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1211-CR-480
Criminal. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of Long’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Terrence Boyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1210-CR-498
Criminal. Affirms Boyd’s conviction, after a bench trial, for battery as a Class B misdemeanor.

Benjamen Benjamen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1210-CR-524
Criminal. Affirms Benjamen’s conviction for resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to 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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT