ILNews

Opinions Oct. 26, 2012

October 26, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court released no opinions by IL deadline Friday.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals released no Indiana opinions by IL deadline Friday.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.P.: T.P. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1201-JT-28
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Dennis Adkins v. Judy Saunders, Individually and d/b/a Prevention and More Herbs (NFP)
68A04-1203-CT-103
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment and award of attorney fees in favor of Saunders and the business on Adkins’ negligence claim.

Matt D. Niblick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A04-1203-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms sentence for one count of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Melissa Krodel v. Douglas Krodel (NFP)
55A01-1201-DR-34
Domestic relation. Affirms award of physical and legal custody of minor children to father.

V.R. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1204-JS-187
Juvenile. Affirms evidence was sufficient to support V.R.’s delinquency adjudication for truancy.

Zane Ziebell v. South Milford Grain Company (NFP)
57A03-1203-CC-89
Civil collection. Affirms denial of Ziebell’s motion for relief from summary judgment in favor of South Milford Grain Co. on its complaint against Ziebell for $15,000 in damages.

Gilbert Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-254
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Charles Chulchian v. Rivoli Center for the Performing Arts, Inc., and Indianapolis Eastside Revitalization Corp. (NFP)
49A02-1205-PL-435
Civil Plenary. Dismisses interlocutory appeal of the denial of Chulchian’s verified motion to reconsider or motion to correct errors.

Nyunt Shew v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1203-CR-134
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony aggravated battery.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT