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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT