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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT