ILNews

Opinions Oct. 29, 2013

October 29, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. and Lexington Insurance Co. v. Mead Johnson & Co. LLC, et al.
12-3478, 13-1526
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the insurers in the lawsuit relating to the PBM Products LLC litigation against Mead Johnson for false advertising and remands for further proceedings. Affirms judgment in favor of National Union in the suit arising from the class action against Mead Johnson.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Rel. of: S.B., Ay.B., A.B. & K.G. (Minor Children), and K.G. (Mother) v. Marion County Dept. of Child Services, Child Advocates, Inc.
49A02-1303-JT-244
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights. Concludes that the termination order does not violate Indiana law because the relevant statutory section does not prohibit Magistrate Bradley to report factual findings and conclusions without having presided over the underlying evidentiary hearing. The order does not violate the mother’s due process rights because the underlying evidence was undisputed.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Rel. of I.P., Minor Child and His Father, T.P.: T.P. (Father) v. Child Advocates, Inc., and Indiana Dept. of Child Services

49A02-1303-JT-283
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights. The magistrate judge’s recommended order terminating parental rights did not violate trial rules or father’s right to due process even though he was not the magistrate who heard the evidence but issued findings and conclusions. Judge Vaidik concurs in result.

Constantinos P. Angelopoulos v. Theodore P. Angelopoulos, Neptunia Incorporated, Transmar Corporation, Didiac Establishment, Beta Steel Corporation, and Top Gun Investment Corporation, II.
64A04-1211-PL-594
Civil plenary. Affirms order dismissing Constantino Angelopoulous’ claims that he is entitled to shares of Beta Steel as an heir under his late father’s estate that was administered in Greece. The prior rulings of the Greek courts conclusively established that brother Theodore Angelopoulos is the sole owner of the company. Reverses order declaring the materials filed in court should have automatically remained confidential and remands for further proceedings on the issue of confidentiality and public access.

Shawn Telligman v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Indiana Department of Workforce Development Unemployment Insurance Claims Adjudication

93A02-1304-EX-303
Agency action. Affirms ruling in favor of the IDWD’s claim that Telligman failed to disclose or falsified information to IDWD in order to receive unemployment benefits. The ALJ and review board did not err in finding that Telligman knowingly failed to disclose or falsified facts that would disqualify him from receiving benefits, reduce his benefits, or render him ineligible for benefits or extended benefits, and in finding him liable to repay IDWD the benefit overpayment amounts together with applicable penalties and interest. The board did not abuse its discretion in denying his request to submit additional evidence.

Jason E. Morales v. State of Indiana
82A05-1302-CR-72
Criminal. Grants rehearing to clarify that Morales did not apply for acceptance into a county forensic diversion program. Although Morales petitioned the trial court to be placed into the program and the probation department investigated whether he satisfied its criteria, this action is not the same as Morales applying directly to the program. Judge May would deny the petition for rehearing.

Gerald Clemons v. State of Indiana
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2013/october/10291301ebb.pdf
49A05-1210-CR-587
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine entered as a Class A misdemeanor. The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.

Michael Wayne Norred v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1303-CR-94
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor panhandling.

P.A. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1305-JV-196
Juvenile. Affirms awarding wardship of P.A. to the Indiana Department of Correction for housing in a correctional facility for children, with the recommendation he receive mental health treatment and medication management.

Rebecca Waggoner v. Robert Waggoner (NFP)
12A02-1303-DR-231
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of mother’s motion to modify custody and the split of guardian ad litem fees. Holds mother should not pay appellate attorney fees.

Chad Malone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1302-CR-71
Criminal. Affirms denial of request for seventh continuance just before trial and 75-year sentence for two counts of Class A felony attempted murder.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to 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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT