ILNews

Opinions Nov. 30, 2012

November 30, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
State of Indiana Ex Rel., Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission v. Derek A. Farmer
94S00-1103-MS-165
Attorney discipline. Rejected petition to enjoin unauthorized practice of law, holding that the Disciplinary Commission failed to prove that Farmer had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and failed to convince the court that Farmer could not have reasonably expected to be authorized for temporary admission due to a pending disciplinary proceeding.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Adoption of Minor Children: C.B.M. and C.R.M.: C.A.B. v. J.D.M. and K.L.M.
37A03-1204-AD-149
Adoption. Reverses trial court’s denial of birth mother’s petition to set aside the adoption decree and remands for further proceedings, finding that the state’s consent to the adoption of C.B.M. and C.R.M. was arbitrary and capricious and in derogation of the birth mother’s procedural due process right to a meaningful appeal of the termination order, which was overturned prior to the grant of the adoption decree.

Peabody Energy Corp., Peabody Coal Co., LLC, and Black Beauty Coal Co. v. Richard F. Roark and Beelman Truck Co., and North American Capacity Ins. Co.
14A01-1112-CT-555
Civil Tort. Affirms its opinion in all regards to reverse a trial court’s grant of summary judgment to North American Capacity Insurance Co. In its petition for a rehearing, NAC argued the opinion did not explain if it had a duty to indemnify or only a duty to defend. The COA rejected the argument on the grounds it was not raised on appeal.  

Steven Hook, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1204-CR-192
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon.

Erich Wilhelmi v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A05-1204-CR-214
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for three years in prison with two executed for a conviction of Class D felony failure to return to the scene of an accident resulting in serious bodily injury.

In Re: 2009 Marion County Tax Sale Parcel No. 1019054; Darryl W. Finkton, Sr. v. Auditor of Marion County, Treasurer of Marion County, and Indy-East Asset Development Corp. (NFP)
49A02-1201-MI-41
Miscellaneous/tax sale. Affirms reissuance of tax deed to auditor.

Danny G. Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1205-CR-229
Criminal. Affirms concurrent sentence of six years for a conviction of Class C felony forgery and two years each for convictions of Class D felony counts of receiving stolen property and fraud.

Jose Carlos Arce v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A05-1206-PC-324
Post-conviction relief. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands to the trial court for a hearing on Arce’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Siraj Khaja Ahmed v. Asma Saman Ahmed (NFP)
64A03-1204-DR-175
Domestic relations/divorce. Affirms trial court denial of Siraj’s motion to correct error and its grant of Asma’s motion to dismiss.  
 
Alberto R. Melendez Cruz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1203-CR-150
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT