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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT