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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT