Opinions Oct. 1, 2012

October 1, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Scott F. West v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Orders discharge of marijuana charges because West was held to answer those charges for more than a year without a trial date while a motion to suppress awaited a ruling. West did not request an indefinite continuance such that he needed to notify the court that he wished to proceed to trial.

Michael D. Wood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s recommendation of a two-year driving privilege suspension following conviction of Class A misdemeanors possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and operating a vehicle with 0.15 or more blood alcohol content.

Acuity Mutual Insurance Company v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, et al. (NFP)
Civil plenary. Reverses grant of American Family’s motion, in which the trial court concluded that the nephew of the owner of the van was entitled to coverage under Acuity’s policy and that Acuity was his primary insurer. Remands with instructions to enter summary judgment in Acuity’s favor.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of F.L. v. Wishard Health Services, Midtown Community Mental Health Center (NFP)
Mental health. Affirms civil commitment requiring F.L. to receive outpatient treatment.

Robert L. Peals v. Indiana State University and its Board of Trustees (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Indiana State University and its board of trustees on Peals’ breach of implied contract claim.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit