ILNews

Opinions Oct. 17, 2012

October 17, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court

J.M. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and T.C.
Agency appeal. Finds the court may rely on a different statutory ground of a just cause finding than the one relied upon by the review board when, as here, the review board’s findings of fact clearly establish the alternate subsection’s applicability. Affirms the review board under Indiana Code section 22-4-15-1(d)(5), that J.M. refused to obey instructions, and was thus fired for just cause. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Earl F. Shields, Larry J. Shields, and Robert L. Shields v. Rodney L. Taylor
53A04-1202-PL-95
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s Dec. 9, 2011, finding of facts, conclusions of law and order, and the denial of the Shields’ motion to correct errors in favor of Rodney Taylor on his complaint for trespass. Agrees that the Shields’ counterclaim was not sufficiently pled to encompass a theory of easement by prescription.

Wind Wire, LLC v. Roger Finney and Patricia Finney
71A03-1202-PL-78
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment that Wind Wire fraudulently induced Roger and Patricia Finney to execute a contract for the purchase and installation of a residential wind turbine. The trial judge applied the correct legal standard.  

D.L., Glen Black, Ann Black, Steven Lucas, and K.L., by her Next Friend, D.L. v. Christine Huck, Laura Zimmerman, Angela Smith Grossman, Rhonda Friend, Angyl McClaine, and Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs.
79A04-1202-CT-61
Civil tort.  Concludes that DCS was not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for any of the claimed actions, including negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but is entitled to statutory immunity for all the originally dismissed claims except for the fraud claim. Ann and Glen, but not Steven, had standing to bring the suit, so D.L., K.L., Ann Black and Glen Black may proceed on the fraud claim. Remands for further proceedings.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: A.R., V.R., C.R., and K.B.; and T.B. and C.R. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services and Lake County Court Appointed Special Advocates (NFP)
45A03-1201-JT-38
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of T.H.M.; T.H. and A.M. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1202-JT-61
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

George Powells v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-255
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class C felony battery.

Curt Lowder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1204-CR-160
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for murder.

Mark Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1201-CR-35
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Norman Barker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-20
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for murder, felony murder, Class A felonies robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by 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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT