ILNews

Opinions Oct. 6, 2011

October 6, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions from Indiana courts at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
Putnam County Sheriff v. Pamela Price
60S01-1012-CV-665
Civil. Reverses trial court’s denial of the Putnam County Sheriff’s motion to dismiss Price’s negligence action for failure to state a claim. A county sheriff’s department that neither owns, maintains or controls a county road does not owe a common law duty to warn the public of known hazardous conditions upon the roadway. Justices David and Dickson concur in result.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Catherine A. Littleton v. State of Indiana
49A04-1101-CR-25
Criminal. Reverses denial of Littleton’s motion to dismiss charges of Class C felony criminal confinement, Class D felony neglect of a dependent, and Class B misdemeanor battery. Remands for dismissal of the charges. Littleton’s conduct comes within the scope of her statutory qualified immunity as a teacher managing a classroom, and the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion to dismiss.

In Re Petition in Opposition to Annexation Ordinance F-2008-15 v. The City of Evansville
82A05-1102-PL-84
Civil plenary. Affirms the denial of the remonstrators’ motion to correct error and the dismissal of their challenge to the proposed annexation of certain parcels of land by the city of Evansville. The appellate court can’t grant the remonstrators any effective relief because they failed to request a stay or file a notice of appeal before the annexation became effective, and their challenges are now moot.

Andrew Kesling v. Dorothy Kesling, Adam Kesling and Emily Kesling
46A03-1103-DR-77
Domestic relation. Reverses judgment approving an arbitrator’s award that required Andrew Kesling to make a shareholder distribution from funds of a closely held corporation as requested by siblings Emily and Adam Kesling after they intervened in the dissolution of Andrew’s marriage to Dorothy Kesling. Andrew was entitled to request a jury and could not be compelled to submit to arbitration under the auspice of the Family Law Arbitration Act. The arbitrator exceeded the scope of her authority.

Anthony J. Sims v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1102-CR-80
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony rape and remands with instructions to vacate the conviction of and sentence for Class C felony incest.

Adam L. Shull v. Mari E. Shull (NFP)
43A03-1103-DR-104
Domestic relation. Affirms distribution of marital property.

In Re the Paternity of R.T.; A.G., et al. v. C.T. (NFP)
34A04-1012-JP-792
Juvenile. Affirms order granting father C.T.’s petition to relocate R.T. to Kentucky and denying mother A.G.’s motion to modify custody.

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. If real money was spent on this study, what a shame. And if some air-head professor tries to use this to advance a career, pity the poor student. I am approaching a time that i (and others around me) should be vigilant. I don't think I'm anywhere near there yet, but seeing the subject I was looking forward to something I might use to look for some benchmarks. When finally finding my way to the hidden questionnaire all I could say to myself was...what a joke. Those are open and obvious signs of any impaired lawyer (or non-lawyer, for that matter), And if one needs a checklist to discern those tell-tale signs of impairment at any age, one shouldn't be practicing law. Another reason I don't regret dropping my ABA membership some number of years ago.

  2. The case should have been spiked. Give the kid a break. He can serve and maybe die for Uncle Sam and can't have a drink? Wow. And they won't even let him defend himself. What a gross lack of prosecutorial oversight and judgment. WOW

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT