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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT