ILNews

Opinions Oct. 23, 2012

October 23, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc., et al., v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, et al.
11-2464
Civil. Reverses in part and affirms in part, affirming the district court injunction against I.C. 5-22-17-5.5(b) that bars state or federal funding for “any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed.” The circuit court held that Medicaid grants individual rights under federal civil rights protections, but reversed the district court with regard to federal block grant funds, holding that no such actionable protection exists.

Indiana Supreme Court
National Wine & Spirits, Inc., National Wine & Spirits Corporation, NWS, Inc., NWS Michigan, Inc., and NWS, LLC v. Ernst & Young, LLP
49S02-1203-CT-137
Civil tort. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of Ernst & Young, holding that collateral estoppel precludes the plaintiffs’ deception claim because the veracity of the defendant’s documents at issue had been decided during arbitration proceedings.
 
Indiana Court of Appeals
State Automobile Ins. Co., Meridian Security Ins. Co., and Indiana Farmers Mutual Ins. Co. v. DMY Realty Co., LLP and Commerce Realty, LLC
49A05-1109-PL-486
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of DMY and denial of summary judgment in favor of State Auto, holding that language in insurance policies regarding pollutants was ambiguous. The court also remanded to the trial court to review settlement agreements between Indiana Farmers and DMY and to consider valid contribution of credit issues.

David Mathews v. State of Indiana
01A02-1203-CR-207
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony intimidation and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, and Mathews adjudication as a habitual offender. The court held that the court did not abuse its discretion by failing to grant Mathews’ request for a mistrial and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction.

Calvin Merida v. State of Indiana
69A01-1203-CR-110
Criminal. Reverses and remands with instructions sentence for child molestation. The court found the nature of the offense and the character of the defendant did not warrant the 60-year aggregate term of imprisonment assessed by the trial court. Instead, it reversed and remanded with instructions to revise the sentencing order to run the two 30-year sentences concurrently for an aggregate 30-year term of imprisonment. Judge Crone dissented, arguing for a partially consecutive sentence.

David A. Young v. Gladys C. Young (NFP)
34A04-1204-DR-222
Divorce. Reverses and remands a dissolution of marriage order with instructions to equally divide the marital estate not subject to a prenuptial agreement and reverses the order awarding incapacity maintenance with instructions to determine whether wife has ability to support herself absent an award.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline Tuesday.









 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT