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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT