ILNews

Opinions Nov. 5, 2010

November 5, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
S.A. v. Review Board
93A02-1004-EX-568
Civil. Affirms the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development’s ruling that S.A.’s acceptance of an early retirement package made her ineligible to continue receiving unemployment benefits. S.A. left employment without good cause in connection with the work.

Deana Crickmore v. John R. Crickmore (NFP)
49A04-1003-DR-184
Domestic relation. Affirms finding John’s overpayments of spousal maintenance were involuntary and the order Deana repay him accordingly. Reverses amount of judgment as to the dollar amount and affirms in all other respects. Remands for further proceedings.

Robin L. Rashin v. Mark W. Rashin (NFP)
45A04-0911-CV-660
Civil. Reverses denial of rehabilitative maintenance to Robin and remands with instructions to calculate an award of rehabilitative maintenance, to exclude the settlement proceeds from the marital estate, and to recalculate the division of marital property accordingly. Remands the issue of whether Robin shall be awarded appellate attorney fees. Affirms judgment in all other respects.

Jeanette Daniels, et al. v. Hidden Bay Homeowners Association, Inc., et al. (NFP)
49A02-1003-PL-279
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for all of the defendants in Daniels and Russell’s suit to recover damage to a condominium and personal property after a fire.

In the Guardianship of Z.E. and A.W.; Ala.G., et al. v. Alk.G., et al. (NFP)

45A05-1004-GU-255
Guardianship. Affirms juvenile court has subject matter jurisdiction over the grandparents’ custody action as it relates to one of the children and remands for a determination of whether the court has subject matter as it relates to the other child. Affirms order finding the mother is the custodian of the children unless another court has ruled otherwise and by appointment a guardian ad litem and directing the grandparents to pay a portion of the guardian ad litem’s fees relating to Z.E. Reverses order appointing GAL and requiring grandparents to pay GAL fees for matters relating to A.W. only if the court is found to lack jurisdiction over the custody of A.W. on remand.  

Antonio M. Sanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)

22A01-1005-CR-234
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT