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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT