ILNews

Opinions June 4, 2013

June 4, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
City of Indianapolis v. Rachael Buschman
49S02-1210-CT-598
Civil tort. Affirmed trial court’s grant of summary judgment in Buschman’s favor and remanded the case for further proceedings. Ruled that Buschman’s inclusion of information about her injuries does not restrict the scope of her claim. Although she stated in her claim she did not suffer any injuries from an auto accident involving an Indianapolis police officer, the amended statute governing the Indiana Tort Claims Act does not require a description of injuries. The court concluded when the Legislature amended the statute, it intended to remove any pre-existing requirement of specificity in regards to personal injuries.   

Indiana Court of Appeals
Cesar Chavez v. State of Indiana
49A02-1211-CR-892
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands conviction of five counts of Class C felony child molestation, holding that the five counts were in violation of the continuing crime doctrine and that Chavez committed two chargeable crimes instead of the five for which a jury convicted him. The Court of Appeals instructed the trial court to vacate three of the five convictions.

Matthew J. Bulliner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1211-CR-472
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony and Class A misdemeanor convictions of resisting law enforcement.

Stephen R. Hollingsworth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
26A04-1210-CR-498
Criminal. Affirms in interlocutory appeal denial of motion for discharge for violation of the speedy trial provision under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C).

Mark Bonds v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1212-CR-974
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Charles D. Gilliam v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1210-CR-432
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony conviction of receiving stolen property.

Jason Ulysses Harmon v. United States Steel Corporation f/k/a USX Corporation (NFP)

93A02-1212-EX-1030
Executive administrative/worker’s compensation. Affirms Worker’s Compensation Board’s denial of benefits.

Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions before IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions before 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