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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT