ILNews

Opinions Nov. 1, 2012

November 1, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court decision was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
Stephen W. Robertson, Indiana Comm. of Insurance, as Admin. of Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund and The Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. B.O., A Minor, Lisa A. Ort and Kevin C. Ort
49S04-1111-CT-671
Civil tort. Affirms grant of partial summary judgment to B.O. and his parents because Indiana Code 34-18-15-3(5) precludes the Patient Compensation Fund from disputing the existence or cause of B.O.’s claimed injury.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Leslie Bridges v. Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC, Veolia Water North America Operating Service, LLC, and The City of Indianapolis, Dept. of Waterworks
49A02-1112-CC-1097
Civil collection. Affirms trial court dismissal of Bridges’ class action filed after her water was turned off for nonpayment, finding Bridges failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available at the Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission. She had to seek those remedies before seeking judicial relief. Concludes that I.C. 8-1-2-68 through -70 grant the IURC exclusive jurisdiction over Bridges’ claim regardless of whether it is treated as a challenge to and request for reimbursement of the reconnect fee or as a challenge to the allegedly improper act of terminating her residential water service in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the tariff.

Joshua Shipley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
07A05-1204-CR-225
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony criminal confinement with a deadly weapon.

Jeffrey S. Heironimus v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1204-CR-152
Criminal. Affirms admission of evidence of witness identifications made after a warrantless entry into an accomplice’s residence.

Angela R. Elliott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
13A04-1201-CR-11
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, and Class A misdemeanors possession of paraphernalia and resisting law enforcement.

Brian S. Fleming v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1202-CR-100
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

Stephen L. Reed v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1205-CR-216
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony corrupt business influence.

Bryan Jann v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and C&B Custom Modular, Inc. (NFP)
93A02-1112-EX-1185
Agency appeal. Affirms decision by review board that Jann, by failing to appear, had presented no evidence to support claim for unemployment benefits.

Darrius Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1202-CR-90
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Kenneth Hawkins v. Debra Hawkins (NFP)
49A02-1203-DR-206
Domestic relation. Affirms distribution of assets and declines to award Debra Hawkins attorney fees.

David J. Bogolia and Nikki Schafer v. John Danielson, M.D. (NFP)
64A04-1201-CC-42
Civil collection. Affirms denial of Bogolia’s and Schafer’s motion for partial summary judgment and their motion to strike Dr. Danielson’s response to that motion.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT