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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT