ILNews

Opinions Oct. 26, 2010

October 26, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Allstate Insurance Company v. Timothy Clancy, et al.
45A03-0910-CV-498
Civil. Reverses trial court’s order granting a motion to compel the production of documents. In its interlocutory appeal, Allstate Insurance Company raised the following issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion by compelling production of documents subject to the attorney-client privilege on the ground that Allstate has implicitly raised an advice of counsel defense, thereby waiving the attorney-client privilege.

Nathan Brock v. State of Indiana
38A02-1003-CR-272
Criminal. Affirms Nathan Brock’s conviction of operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life, a Class C felony. Brock argued his convictions violated double jeopardy because the trial court granted the state’s request for a mistrial at the close of the first trial in the absence of a manifest necessity to do so, and then permitted the state to retry Brock, resulting in his conviction. Indiana Court of Appeals found the mistrial and subsequent retrial did not violate double jeopardy.

Troy Burge v. State of Indiana (NFP)
56A03-1006-CR-331
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion for credit time and time served.

Russell Timmons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-0910-CR-567
Criminal. Affirms conviction of confinement, a Class C felony.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of C.O.V.; C.L.V. and T.G. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1003-JT-445
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

O.P. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1003-EX-408
Civil. Affirms Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development’s denial of request for unemployment benefits.

The Law Offices of Wayne Greeson, PC, and Shammah Investments, LLC v. Steuben County Auditor (NFP)
76A03-1003-MI-122
Civil. Affirms trial court’s judgment in favor of Steuben County Auditor regarding attorney fees in tax sales.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT