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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT