ILNews

Opinions March 14, 2014

March 14, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Thursday:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Leonard Thomas v. Keith Butts, et al.
12-2902
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson.
Civil. Vacates dismissal of Thomas’ lawsuit against prison officials alleging deliberate indifference to his epilepsy in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The judge dismissed the suit without determining if Thomas was at fault for not paying the initial filing fee.

Indiana Supreme Court
In re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of G.P., a Minor Child, and His Mother, J.A. v. Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc.
49S02-1308-JT-558
Juvenile. Vacates judgment terminating J.A.’s parental rights. J.A. was denied her statutory right to counsel during the course of the CHINS proceedings below and those proceedings flowed directly into an action to terminate her parental rights and (in a separate action) adopt out her child.

Howard Justice v. American Family Insurance Company
49S02-1303-PL-221
Civil plenary. Reverses grant of summary judgment to American Family and remands for further proceedings. Concludes Justice is entitled to recover the remaining $25,000 from American Family under the terms of his underinsured motorist policy limit because the set-off using workers’ compensation benefits in his case would reduce the policy below the statutory minimum. Chief Justice Dickson concurs in part.

Friday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

State Board of Funeral and Cemetery Service v. Settlers Life Insurance Company
49A05-1307-PL-365
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of Settlers’ motion for summary judgment in which the court deemed that Settlers’ insurance product did not fall within the statutory confines of the Pre-Need Act. Settlers sells an at-need product that fulfills different needs than a pre-need product, so the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in its favor when it determined that at-need contracts and services do not fall within the scope of the Pre-Need Act.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: K.D., S.D., and I.D., Minor Children, and D.D., Father v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
53A01-1307-JT-315
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Cleveland Munoz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-567
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Jason Roudebush v. State of Indiana (NFP)
80A04-1301-PC-46
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Beverly K. Oswald v. CNB National Lending, LLC, Bryce A. Bly, Eric Swedenburg and Andrea Swedenburg (NFP)
82A01-1305-CC-223
Civil collection. Affirms order in favor of CNB, Bly and the Swedenburgs that concluded they did not breach the settlement and release agreement. Affirms separate award of attorney fees.

David Lee Robinson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1308-CR-401
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony failure to register as a sex offender.

C.B. v. G.N. (NFP)
18A02-1308-JP-677
Juvenile. Affirms order requiring M.D.B. to assume the surname of his father G.N.

Mary Sparks v. Harborside Nursing Home (NFP)
93A02-1307-EX-616
Agency action. Affirms denial of claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions Friday by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT