ILNews

Opinions Oct. 14, 2010

October 14, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday.
Indiana Supreme Court
TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc., and Ford Motor Company v. Sally J. Moore, personal representative of the estate of Daniel A. Moore, deceased  
73S05-0909-CV-404
Civil. Reverses allocation of fault to Daniel Moore, Ford Motor Co., nonparty Goodyear Tire, and TRW Vehicle Safety Systems in a wrongful death suit. Reverses judgment of $1.25 million entered against TRW, reverses determination of total damages and remands for retrial to allocate 100 percent of the fault between Moore and Ford and re-determine the total damages subject to fault allocations unless the estate accepts remittitur as specified.

Today’s opinions

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Town of Culver Board of Zoning Appeals v. Roderick J. Ratcliff and Pamela A. Ratcliff
50A03-1004-MI-179
Miscellaneous. Affirms judgment in favor of the Ratcliffs on their petition for writ of certiorari from an adverse decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The storage sheds on a landscaped gravel lot supplied with electricity aren’t considered “structures” within the definition of Culver’s zoning ordinances.

Claudette Gee v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC
27A02-1003-MF-304
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms denial of Gee’s motion to set aside the sheriff’s sale of her property. The sheriff complied with Indiana Code Section 32-29-7-3(e)’s requirement that notices of the sale be posted “at the door of the courthouse” when the notice was posted at the temporary court offices instead of the permanent courthouse, which was under renovation.

D.C. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1002-JV-100
Juvenile. Affirms the juvenile court didn’t abuse its discretion in ordering a commitment to the Department of Correction. Reverses order of both a determinate and indeterminate commitment. Because I.C. Section 31-37-19-10 is applicable to D.C., he is subject to a determinate commitment of up to 2 years in an authorized facility. Remands to issue a new dispositional order.

In the Matter of the Adoption of K.F. and T.F.; B.F. v. L.F.
47A04-1006-AD-373
Adoption. Affirms grant of stepmother L.F.’s petition for adoption of B.F.’s minor children. The evidence is sufficient to show mother had the ability to pay child support but did not, and that she is unfit to be a parent.

M.R., M.R., F.R., and K.R., Alleged to be CHINS; F.T. v. IDCS and Child Advocates
49A05-1002-JC-140
Juvenile. Vacates parental participation decree with regard to the alleged father of one of the children and remands for further proceedings. F.T.’s paternity of F.R. has never been established and certain procedural prerequisites for a parental participation decree weren’t followed.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel of J.P., et al; A.P. and A.P. v. I.D.C.S. and Child Advocates (NFP)
49A02-1003-JT-385
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Lisa A. Fowler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1003-CR-171
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a youth program center as a Class B felony.

Jarrod S. Snyder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A05-1003-CR-155
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Snyder serve the entire suspended portion of his sentence.

Mark Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-193
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony burglary, Class D felony attempted theft, Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, and determination Thomas is a habitual offender.

Timothy Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1003-CR-308
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony attempted robbery, Class C felony battery, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Phyllis A. Merriweather v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-428
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT