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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT