ILNews

Opinions Oct. 15, 2010

October 15, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Southlake Community Mental Health Center, Inc., et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Crown Point, Indiana, et al.
45A03-1002-MI-81
Miscellaneous. Reverses determination that the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Crown Point correctly concluded that Southlake and Watertower South’s proposed use of a certain parcel was inappropriate for the parcel’s zoning classification. The original appeal of the Crown Point Plan Commission’s decision by Feather Rock Professional Office Park was untimely. Remands with instructions to grant Southlake and Watertower’s certiorari petition.

Ritzert Co., Inc., et al. v. United Fidelity Bank, Tyme Properties, LLC, et al.
82A04-1001-PL-35
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for United Fidelity Bank on the contractors’ claim for unjust enrichment. United, which made no request, express or implied, to the contractors for their services did not otherwise owe a duty to the contractors.  

Travis Cordell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1005-CR-601
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Travis D. Rutherford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1005-PC-278
Criminal. Affirms guilty plea to, conviction of, and sentence for Class D felony voyeurism.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of E.Y., et al.; C.Y. v. Montgomery County D.C.S. (NFP)
54A01-1005-JT-229
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Mental Health Proceedings of D.J. (NFP)
29A04-1003-MH-205
Mental health. Affirms order involuntarily committing D.J. to a mental-health facility as an inpatient.

Christopher Rudolph v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1002-CR-61
Criminal. Affirms 25-year sentence for aggravated battery, unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and carrying a handgun without a license under one cause number; and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, dealing in marijuana, and resisting law enforcement under another cause number.

Crystal G. Huesman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1002-CR-130
Criminal. Affirms determination that Huesman violated her probation.

Dametrick M. Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1002-CR-143
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT