ILNews

Opinions June 29, 2010

June 29, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Monday.
Indiana Supreme Court
Sylvia B. Piven, et al. v. ITT Corporation, Inc., et al.
94S00-0911-CQ-508
Certified question. The District Court of New York correctly applied instructive Delaware caselaw to determine the demand futility standards that Indiana would apply. Holds that the Indiana Business Corporation Law employs the same standard for showing - lack of disinterestedness - both as to the composition of special board committees under Indiana Code Section 23-1-32-4 and to the requirement that a shareholder must make a demand that the corporation‘s board act unless the demand would be futile.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court
Andre Peoples v. State of Indiana
79S02-0912-CR-549
Criminal. Affirms finding Peoples is a habitual offender. People’s instant dealing offense is to be counted in calculating the total number of unrelated felony convictions an individual has for drug dealing. While a single felony drug conviction is not enough to qualify a person for habitual offender status, a second such conviction is, be it a prior conviction or the instant offense.

Myron Owens v. State of Indiana
49S02-0910-CR-429
Criminal. Affirms Owens’ convictions of and sentence for dealing cocaine and obstruction of justice, and that he has accumulated two unrelated convictions to be sentenced under the habitual offender statute. Holds conspiracy to deal conviction is not equivalent to a dealing conviction for purposes of the Indiana habitual offender statute.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Randy Edward Johnson v. State of Indiana
53A01-1002-CR-38
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting. No actual conflict existed that required the defense attorney to make a choice advancing his own interests to the detriment of his client’s interests, but only a potential conflict occurred between Johnson and his counsel. Finds that the trial court’s action of formally noting Johnson’s displeasure on the chronological case history and forwarding his request to the Monroe County Public Defender Officer reasonable. The State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.

Paternity of H.S.; P.S. v. R.F.
91A02-1003-JP-334
Juvenile. Affirms summary judgment in favor of R.F. in P.S. and H.S.’s paternity action against him and the denial of their request for genetic testing of R.F. Any objections to Judge Overbeck’s presiding over the adoption were waivable and H.S. and P.S. have done just that due to mother P.S.’s failure to raise the issue in 1975. Concludes that a mere desire to know the identity of one’s biological father, whatever the reason, is insufficient once establishing legal paternity is not possible. The trial court correctly denied H.S and P.S.’s motion to compel genetic testing on R.F.

Paternity of K.D.; T.N. v. B.D.
49A02-0907-JV-693
Juvenile. Reverses juvenile court order prohibiting mother T.N. from discussing legal proceedings with the media following the establishment of paternity of her child K.D. The order is an invalid prior restraint on mother’s free speech rights, and the confidentiality provisions in Indiana Code and Administrative Rule 9 don’t prohibit her from talking to others about the case based on her knowledge obtained independent of the juvenile proceedings. Remands with instructions.

Lorenzo A. Taylor v. State of Indiana

29A02-0912-CR-1212
Criminal. Reverses conviction of conspiracy to commit dealing in cocaine as a Class A felony and remands with instructions to enter as a Class B felony and resentence accordingly. Taylor’s convictions and sentences for both dealing in cocaine and conspiracy to commit dealing in cocaine don’t violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.

City of Indianapolis v. Olive Duffitt

49A04-0911-CV-661
Civil. Reverses denial of City of Indianapolis’ motion for summary judgment in Duffitt’s tort action for damages arising out of injuries sustained from falling on a sidewalk. Given the budgetary considerations and cost-benefit analyses that produced the city’s prioritization scheme, Indianapolis’ designated evidence demonstrates that its decisions are discretionary under the “planning-operational test” as it is interpreted in Pairsh and Rutherford. In cases where certain policy decisions have been delegated to individual employees, discretionary immunity may be established through affidavits. Remands with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the city.

Michael Harrison v. Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC
49A04-0912-CV-722
Civil. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Veolia Water Indianapolis on the basis that Harrison failed to provide Veolia with notice of his injury pursuant to the Indiana Tort Claims Act. Concludes after considering the evident purposes of ITCA and the development of the common law predating Indiana Tort Claims Act’s adoption that Veolia is not a governmental entity or a political subdivision of the State entitled to ITCA’s protections. Remands for further proceedings

Adam Gibson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A01-1001-CR-28
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony burglary.

Kathy Hardesty v. Larry Vickery (NFP)

08A04-1001-PO-117
Order of protection. Affirms order of protection against Hardesty.

Christopher Deardorff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-0911-CR-550
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

James Daugherty v. State of Indiana (NFP)
21A01-1001-CR-55
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to public intoxication as a Class B misdemeanor.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of L.C. & G.C.; G.C. v. Marion County Dept. of Child Services and Child Advocates (NFP)

49A02-0912-JV-1253
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Saundra and Clyde Smithson v. Howard Regional Health System (NFP)

34A02-1001-CT-73
Civil. Reverses and remands summary judgment in favor of Howard Regional Health System that it was immune from liability under the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

S.C. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-0912-JV-1186
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for false informing, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

Sheldon Fogleman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1002-CR-62
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft.

Billy Dix v. Indiana State Department of Health, et al. (NFP)
03A01-1001-MI-13
Miscellaneous. Affirms order on judicial review affirming the Indiana State Department of Health’s administrative determination that Dix’s involuntary transfer was in compliance with Indiana’s regulations.

Spencer Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0912-CR-719
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Donald Fisher v. Tower Bank and Trust Co. (NFP)
02A05-1002-MF-97
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Tower Bank upon the court’s determination that the bank’s lien on property owned by Stauffer Development was first in priority.

L.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-JV-15
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for Class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult.

Cynthia Sericati v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-0911-CR-673
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony neglect of a dependent.

Alvino Pizano v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1002-CR-128
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to remove defendant from Indiana’s Sex Offender Registry Act’s Residency Restriction Portion.

Kevin Holloway v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0911-CR-649
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child solicitation.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT