ILNews

Opinions Oct. 25, 2010

October 25, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Alesa Pack v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration
89A05-1004-PL-240
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of Medicaid benefits. The administrative law judge’s decision is defective for failing to consider the totality of the evidence provided and in its presentation of and engagement with the findings of basic fact when applying the law to reach a finding of ultimate fact that Pack’s health conditions didn’t substantially impair her ability to work. Remands to the ALJ for further proceedings.

Tyree L. Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-173
Criminal. Affirms order Thomas serve the remainder of his sentence incarcerated after violating his probation.

Willie Ferrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-PC-514
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Parr Richey Obremskey & Morton and Kent M. Frandsen v. Biomet, Inc. (NFP)
43A03-1002-CT-70
Civil tort. Affirms entry of partial summary judgment on duty and breach on Biomet’s complaint for legal malpractice and remands for a trial concerning proximate cause and damages.

Duward T. Roby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-0910-CR-492
Criminal. Remands with orders to vacate three of Roby’s Class B felony robbery convictions and sentences, and to revise his sentence so the habitual offender finding enhances the sentence for his remaining Class B felony robbery conviction.

Runningman, LLC, v. The Nagsak Company of West Lafayette, Inc., Joshua Nagy and Robert Sak (NFP)
18A02-1003-PL-383
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of Runningman’s complaint against The Nagsak Company of West Lafayette, Nagy, and Sak for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and violation of the Indiana Franchise Disclosure Act.

David L. Lind and Edward D. Deters v. New Albany Floyd County Dept. of Parks and Recreation (NFP)
22A01-1002-PL-94
Civil plenary. Affirms the use of eminent domain for some of Lind and Deters’ lands for a public park.

Halifax Financial Group, LP v. Capital Imp. Bd. of Mgrs. of Marion Co. and Marion Co. Convention and Recreational Facilities Authority (NFP)
49A02-0912-CV-1291
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for the Capital Improvement Board and the Marion County Convention and Recreational Facilities Authority in Halifax’s suit to recover possession of real estate, removing them from the land, and order the removal of a parking garage built on the land.

S.H.P. v. S.P. (NFP)
49A02-1005-DR-680
Domestic relation. Affirms grant of custody to father S.P.

Rodrigo Medrano, Jr., v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-0912-CR-686
Criminal. Affirms convictions of carrying a handgun while having a prior felony conviction as a Class C felony and possession of marijuana while having a prior conviction as a Class D felony.

The Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted 6 transfers and denied 26 for the week ending Oct. 22.
 

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