Opinions June 11, 2014

June 11, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday.
Shannon Robinson and Bryan Robinson v. Erie Insurance Exchange
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Erie Insurance on the issue of whether its automobile policy provided uninsured motorists coverage for automobile property damaged caused by a hit-and-run driver where no personal injury resulted. Because personal injury did not result in the accident, the Erie policy does not provide uninsured motorist coverage with respect to the property damage sustained by the Robinsons’ vehicle.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

In the Matter of the Petition for Temporary Protective Order: A.N. v. K.G.
Protective order. On rehearing, reverses 28-year extension of protective order because it is unreasonable. Because A.N. agreed to an extension, remands for the trial court to determine a reasonable extension of K.G.’s protective order in accordance with the instructions in this opinion.

Jeffrey M. Miller and Cynthia S. Miller v. Central Indiana Community Foundation, Inc., and Brian Payne
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Central Indiana Community Foundation Inc. and Brian Payne on the Millers’ lawsuit alleging, among other things, defamation and tortious interference with a business relationship. Summary judgment was proper on the tort claims, civil conspiracy claim and loss of consortium claim.

State of Indiana v. Brishen R. Vanderkolk
Criminal. Affirms grant of Vanderkolk’s suppression motion. Caselaw supports the conclusion that Vanderkolk’s roommate did not completely waive his Fourth Amendment rights before beginning home detention. A search of their home led to contraband in Vanderkolk’s room. Judge Bailey concurs in result. Judge Kirsch dissents without opinion.

Ajayi Folajuwoni v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor voyeurism, Class B misdemeanor battery and Class B felony attempted deviate conduct.

In Re the Paternity of C.B.: F.M. v. N.B. (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms grant of father’s petition to award him primary custody of child and the order mother pay $5,000 of father’s attorney fees.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.R. and K.R., Minor Children, and B.W., Mother, B.W. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, et al (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating parental rights.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit