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. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT