ILNews

Opinions Nov. 17, 2011

November 17, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no Indiana opinions as of IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
Indiana Spine Group, PC v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC
93S02-1102-EX-90
Miscellaneous. Reverses decision by Worker’s Compensation Board dismissing as untimely Indiana Spine Group’s application for adjustment of claim. Holds that the Worker’s Compensation Act is silent on the question of the limitation period applicable to a medical provider’s claim seeking payment of outstanding bills for authorized treatment to an employer’s employee. Holds that the limitation period contained in the general statute of limitation controls. Remands for further proceedings consistent with opinion.

D.C. v. State of Indiana
49S02-1102-JV-116
Juvenile. Reverses trial court’s dispositional order imposing a determinate commitment of two years in the Department of Correction, to be followed by an indeterminate commitment, holding that the determinate and indeterminate commitment statutes are unambiguously mutually exclusive. Remands to the court to determine which type of commitment is appropriate.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David Hoffman v. State of Indiana
03A01-1104-CR-180
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of Hoffman’s motion to dismiss, holding that he is not entitled to relief on double jeopardy grounds because the record fails to prove that being demoted by the United States Army was related to his arrest, and the Army action was not equivalent to prosecution by the state.

Jane Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis
49A02-1107-CT-595
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s determination that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis had no legal responsibility to continue paying for Jane Doe’s therapy costs, as the Archdiocese had been paying for counseling voluntarily.

Lindell Patterson v. State of Indiana
49A05-1102-CR-38
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, holding that because an officer was able to discern during a pat-down search that Patterson had marijuana in his pocket, the evidence was admissible under the “plain feel” doctrine.

Shawn Brent v. State of Indiana
34A04-1105-CR-268
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, holding that because police officers did not find marijuana on Brent or see him discard it, no proof exists of actual possession. Reverses Class B misdemeanor visiting a common nuisance based on the state’s concession that it did not prove that claim.

Larry Michael Caraway v. State of Indiana
47A01-1104-CR-162
Criminal. Reverses 65-year sentence for murder, holding that the court abused its discretion when it failed to consider Caraway’s guilty plea as a mitigator. Remands to the court for resentencing consistent with opinion.  

Bren Simon, as Personal Rep. of the Estate of Melvin Simon; and Bren Simon, as Trustee of the Melvin Simon Family Enterprises Trust Agreement v. Deborah J. Simon, Simon Property Group, Inc., et al.
29A05-1012-ES-760
Estate, supervised. Dismisses appeal, holding that because Bren Simon was dismissed as personal representative, she does not have authority to pursue an appeal in a representative capacity.

Cordell M. Wells v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A04-1101-CR-32
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and trial court’s order that Wells serve two years of his previously suspended sentence.

Rissie M. Green v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Covenant Care Indiana (NFP)
93A02-1105-EX-421
Miscellaneous. Affirms decision by Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board affirming an administrative law judge’s decision to dismiss Green’s appeal.

Leroy G. Meahl v. Donna J. Meahl (NFP)
36A01-1104-DR-188
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order dissolving marriage.

In Re the Marriage of: Mary K. (Butler) Weir v. Steven J. Butler (NFP)
02A05-1105-DR-287
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s decision in favor of Steven Butler, holding the court properly awarded child support credit for college expense payments.

Ralph Goodman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1105-CR-435
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT