ILNews

Opinions March 24, 2014

March 24, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
The following opinion was issued Friday after IL deadline.

State of Indiana v. I.T.
20S03-1309-JV-583
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile court’s dismissal of a delinquency petition against I.T. that had been filed on the sole basis of a polygraph examination taken while he was receiving treatment as a condition of probation for a delinquency adjudication for what would be Class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult. Finds that the limited immunity in the Juvenile Mental Health Statute, I.C. § 31-32-2-2.5, provides a safe harbor that prevents the state from using statements during court-ordered therapy as the sole basis for juvenile delinquency petitions.  Concludes the state may appeal a juvenile court order that suppresses evidence, if doing so terminates the proceeding.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Purdue University v. Michael A. Wartell
79A02-1304-PL-342
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court order ruling that Purdue University should be equitably estopped from invoking attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine to prevent a chancellor from obtaining a copy of a report by an independent investigator looking into his claims of harassment and discrimination against former university president France Cordova. Concludes that the attorney hired to investigate the allegations was not Purdue’s legal counsel but rather an independent investigator; therefore the trial court rulings were not an abuse of discretion.

David Sesay v. State of Indiana
49A02-1305-CR-434
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, holding that the state failed to prove Sesay engaged in any conduct beyond intoxication that endangered his life.

Albert J. Purcell v. Theresa M. Purcell (NFP)
10A01-1309-DR-390
Domestic. Affirms trial court issuance of a qualified domestic relations order distributing funds from a profit-sharing account owned by the parties before a divorce.

Beatriz Morales v. Housing Authority of South Bend and Attorney General of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1308-SC-311
Small claims. Affirms trial court order of eviction in favor of the Housing Authority of South Bend.

Becky O'Neal v. Donald O'Neal (NFP)
55A04-1310-DR-484
Domestic. Affirms trial court’s denial of petition to modify parenting time.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions Monday before IL deadline. The 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