Opinions Oct. 6, 2011

October 6, 2011
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
Domestic relation. Affirms distribution of marital property.

In Re the Paternity of R.T.; A.G., et al. v. C.T. (NFP)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit