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

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT