ILNews

Opinions Sept. 7, 2012

September 7, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Robert S. Filus v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
No. 12-1164
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey.
Civil/Social Security. Affirms denial of disability benefits, holding that substantial evidence supports the decision of the administrative law judge.  

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re Adoption of M.L.; J.H. v. J.L. and C.L.
29A02-1201-AD-54
Adoption. Affirms trial court ruling that the biological father was an unfit parent and therefore the adoptive parents did not need to get his consent for the adoption.

Kenneth W. Smith and Deb-Anne Smith v. Dermatology Associates of Fort Wayne, P.C. a/k/a Dermatology & Laser Surgery Associates of Fort Wayne, P.C.
02A03-1201-CT-41
Civil tort. Affirms lower court ruling that a burn patient failed to present sufficient evidence to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Timothy A. Bolin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A01-1202-CR-89
Criminal. Affirms order modifying sentence after a conviction of Class B felony conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and guilty plea to Class B felony manufacturing methamphetamine.

Dwayne Rhoiney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-CR-650
Criminal/rehearing. Reaffirms original opinion upholding trial court sentence for murder, criminal confinement and carrying a handgun without a license.

Damionne M. Nichols v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1203-CR-133
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Class B felony.

Janella Datcher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1111-CR-506
Criminal. Affirms convictions and 35-year sentence for Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class D felony battery.

Terrance Mitchem v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1110-PC-497
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief for murder, attempted murder, three counts of attempted murder, two counts of rape and one count of criminal deviate conduct.

Lance Scott Boutte v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1202-CR-91
Criminal. Affirms trial court denial of petition to file a belated notice of appeal.

Curtis B. Lay v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1111-CR-1074
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in a schedule III controlled substance.

T.A.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1204-JV-154
Criminal. Affirms juvenile court order placing T.A.B. in Indiana Boys School.

Indiana Tax Court
Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, Inheritance Tax Division v. The Supervised Estate of John A. Schoenenberger, Deceased
49T10-1010-TA-54
Estate. Reverses probate court determination that the estate was entitled to interest on its refund claim computed according to the 1980 version of Indiana Code 6-4.1-10-1 and judgment interest. The tax court held that a refund on inheritance tax paid was done so within the statutorily required timeframe, and therefore the probate court erred in granting the estate interest on its refund claim and judgment interest. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT