ILNews

Opinions March 6, 2012

March 6, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court

Mark J. Thatcher v. City of Kokomo, et al.
94S00-1109-CQ-570
Certified question. Indiana Code 36-8-4-7(a) applies to a member of the 1977 Fund who is receiving disability benefits and who has been determined to have been recovered pursuant to 35 Indiana Administrative Code 2-5-5(c). And the time period during which a person receives disability benefits under Indiana Code 36-8-8-12(e) does not count toward “years of service” as that term is used in Indiana Code 36-8-4-7(a).

Indiana Court of Appeals
CBR Event Decorators, Inc., Gregory Rankin, Robert Cochrane and John Bales v. Todd M. Gates
49A02-1010-CT-1117
Civil tort. The trial court erred in piercing the corporate veil because Gates failed to establish a causal connection between misuse of the corporate form and fraud or injustice. Affirms judgment against CBR for breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, fraudulent transfer, and wrongful stop payment. Remands for a determination of the portion of attorney fees the shareholders are liable for to Gates as a result of the wrongful stop payment.

John Shocke v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1107-CR-366
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Jamika J. Talley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1107-CR-407
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor conversion.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of M.B. v. Wishard Health Services Midtown Community Mental Health Center (NFP)
49A02-1106-MH-505
Mental health. Affirms involuntary commitment.

Larry Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-706
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended.

Darrick Scott and Paul A. Watson v. City of Terre Haute, et al. (NFP)

84A01-1108-PL-337
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Terre Haute and other city actors on Scott and Watson’s civil complaint alleging that the appointment of 10 firefighters to the position of battalion chief was illegal and circumvented the merit system.

David A. Bowe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A01-1108-CR-375
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT