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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT