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. 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