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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT