ILNews

Opinions March 11, 2014

March 11, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court posted the following opinion Monday after IL deadline:
Bonnie Moryl, as Surviving Spouse and Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard A. Moryl v. Carey B. Ransone, M.D., La Porte Hospital, Dawn Forney, RN, Wanda Wakeman, RN BSBA, et al.
46S04-1403-CT-149
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a malpractice action, holding in a matter of first impression that the complaint was timely filed when it was deposited for overnight shipping with Federal Express the day before the two-year statute of limitations expired. Remands for proceedings.

Tuesday’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court

State of Indiana v. Adrian Lotaki
32S01-1403-CR-151
Criminal. Reverses sentencing order, holding the trial court erred in calculating credit time for a battery committed while Adrian Lotaki was serving a sentence in the Department of Correction. Because sentences for crimes committed in prison are by statute served consecutively, the credit time awarded against the battery conviction effectively enabled Lotaki to serve part of his consecutive sentence concurrently. Remands for resentencing.

In re Adoption of T.L. and T.L.; M.G. v. R.J. and E.J.
02S03-1308-AD-528
Adoption. Affirms trial court adoption petition, holding that it was not clearly erroneous. Father’s consent was not needed because the trial court found he knowingly failed to provide for the care and support of his children, and in such cases statute provides the parent’s consent is not required.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael E. Hitchens v. Collection Specialists, Inc.
48A05-1306-SC-302
Small claims. Affirms judgment in favor of Collection Specialists, Inc. for an uncollected dental bill of $3,440, rejecting Michael Hitchens’ claim that the dentist’s letter stating Hitchens had never expressed displeasure about the services was improperly admitted hearsay. The panel found Hitchens’ due process had not been denied and that rewriting the Small Claims Rules to forbid rulings based exclusively on hearsay evidence would be contrary to the courts’ mission to dispense speedy justice between parties.

Robert E. Hicks v. State of Indiana
82A01-1306-CR-256
Criminal. Affirms Hicks’ conviction of murder and 55-year sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction. Although police officers had started questioning Hicks, they stopped the interrogation and gave him a Miranda warning before he confessed. Therefore, the statements he made about beating and stabbing his girlfriend were admissible.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of B.P., C.P., and D.P., the minor children, and A.H., the Mother, and J.P., the Father: A.H. and J.P. v. IDCS (NFP)
89A04-1310-JT-525
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of A.H.’s (mother) and J.P.’s (father) parental rights to their children, B.P., C.P. and D.P.

Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union No. 20, Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund, et al. (NFP)
03A01-1309-PL-380
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association Local Union No. 20, et al. Concludes the union may properly make claims for payment of unpaid fringe benefit contributions and remitted wages for dues under the public works payment bond.

Dennis J. Turner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A01-1308-PC-347
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Turner’s petition for post-conviction relief.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: K.S. & A.S. (minor children); K.D. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
04A04-1305-JT-225
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of K.J.D.’s (mother) parental rights to her children, K.S. and A.S.

Gregory K. Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A05-1308-PC-376
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Cox’s petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions following a plea of guilty to two counts of attempted murder, each as a Class A felony.

Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor v. Indiana Michigan Power Company and Steel Dynamics, Inc. (NFP)
93A02-1303-EX-233
Civil. Affirms Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s granting of the electric rate increase requested by Indiana Michigan Power.

Laurence F. Myers, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1308-CR-755
Criminal. Affirms 42-year sentence imposed after Myers’s pleaded guilty to burglary as a Class B felony and being a habitual offender, and auto theft as a Class C felony.

The Indiana Tax Court did not post any opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not post any Indiana opinions by 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