ILNews

Opinions Oct. 28, 2011

October 28, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Rick Gillespie, Dawn Gillespie and Rick's Towing and Maintenance, LLC v. Frank B. Niles and Kathryn Niles
49A05-1102-CT-70
Civil tort. Affirms denial of the Gillespies’ objection to the Nileses’ request for a pre-trial conference and refusal to dismiss the action under Indiana Trial Rule 41(E). Affirms grant of summary judgment for the Niles and denial of summary judgment for the Gillespies. The Gillespies failed to wait the required 15 days before selling Kathryn’s vehicle at auction. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment against the Gillespies individually as the judgment should be against Rick’s Towing only.

R.R.F. v. L.L.F.
69A01-1102-DR-70
Domestic relation. Affirms order on remand apportioning post-secondary educational expenses for the parties’ son between father and mother. The appellate court has subject matter jurisdiction because the order on remand is an appealable final judgment and the dissolution court’s allocation of the benefits of the tax credits as a result of the son’s enrollment in college was not clearly erroneous.

M.L. v. Meridian Services, Inc.
18A02-1103-MH-233
Mental health. Affirms M.L.’s temporary commitment to a state-operated facility for a 90-day period because there is clear and convincing evidence he was dangerous. Reverses the authorization to administer medication because there is insufficient evidence to support it.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of E.P. (Minor child) and A.P. and J.P. (Parents); A.P. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
47A01-1101-JT-38
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

Terry Laderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-221
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Farrell Haycraft v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1009-PC-525
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

James Traylor v. Beth Traylor (NFP)
29A02-1102-DR-247
Domestic relation. Affirms finding James Traylor was in contempt and the stayed $6,500 portion of the fine and the attorney fee award were proper sanctions. Reverses first $6,500 portion of the fine because it was improper. Remands for that portion to be vacated.

Weida Levee, LLC v. Doug Brooks and Regina Brooks (NFP)
79A05-1012-CT-739
Civil tort. Affirms order in favor of the Brookses in a case involving a lease of commercial space.

Blease White, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1101-PC-16
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Buzz Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A05-1104-PC-183
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

ADVERTISEMENT