ILNews

Opinions Nov. 4, 2010

November 4, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
DBL Axel LLC v. Lasalle Bank National Association
15A01-1003-PL-205
Civil plenary. Affirms order directing immediate turnover of funds in favor of LaSalle Bank. The checks paid by the city of Lawrenceburg to DBL concerned the property in question and were within the scope of and subject to the receivership order, and DBL’s failure to include that money paid or otherwise notify the receiver of the settlement agreement was a violation of that order. Remands for the trial court to amend its order directing immediate turnover of funds and enter an order directing turnover in the amount of $1,365,500.

Bruce R. Fox v. Dennis Rice and West Central Community Corrections
54A01-1003-PL-97
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of West Central Community Corrections in Fox’s claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and violation of rights under the Indiana and federal constitutions. The tort claim notice period expired before Fox filed his notice, and his federal claim doesn’t contain a genuine issue of material fact.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of Azzie Justice v. Garnet S. Justice (NFP)
43A03-0912-CV-584
Civil. Affirms appointing Garnet as the guardian of the person and estate of Azzie.

Linda Chiesi v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A05-1003-PC-205
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.J.M.; C.M. v. Lake County DCS (NFP)
45A03-1004-JT-248
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Kenneth Mitan v. Richard E. Deckard Family Limited Partnership #206 (NFP)
53A01-0912-CV-612
Civil. Affirms conclusion that Mitan was a proper party to the partnerships forfeiture action. Reverses award of all personal property and remands with instructions to award to the partnership only that personal property specified by the contract as being included in the sale.

Nickolas Sandifer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1004-CR-186
Criminal. Affirms denial of Sandifer’s unverified, oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT