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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT