ILNews

Opinions Sept. 1, 2010

September 1, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court

Suzanne Eads and James Atterhold, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance v. Community Hospital
No. 45S03-1001-CV-33
Civil. Rules general negligence claims filed with the Indiana Department of Insurance can continue an action already filed in state court relating to medical malpractice issues.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Paul E. Armstrong, Jr. v. State of Indiana
38A02-1002-PC-137
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.  The post-conviction court did not err by finding that Armstrong received effective assistance of counsel; Armstrong’s plea of guilty was voluntary; the state established a sufficient factual basis; and any error that stemmed from Armstrong not being represented by counsel at the sentencing hearing is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mickey Sloan v. Town Council of the Town of Patoka
26A01-0910-CV-506
Civil. Reverses decision in favor of the town council, denying Sloan’s claim of inverse condemnation of a certain part of his real estate by the town of Patoka. The Town of Patoka’s use of Sloan’s property as a roadway without prior compensation being paid to Sloan or his predecessor in title constitutes a “taking” under an inverse condemnation theory. Remands for further proceedings.

Stuart A. Clampitt v. State of Indiana
54A01-1002-CR-64
Criminal. Reverses order denying Clampitt’s motion to remove his status as a sexually violent predator. The Montgomery Circuit Court had jurisdiction to rule on his motion. Remands with instructions.

Alrita Morehead v. Duane Deitrich
09A04-1003-CT-172
Civil Tort. Affirms summary judgment for Deitrich in Morehead’s suit after she was bit by a dog that was living in a home Deitrich rented. The undisputed facts are that Deitrich was neither the owner nor the keeper of his tenants’ dog. Thus, as a matter of law, he had no duty to confine or restrain the dog.

Nathan R. Cook v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-CR-36
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Kenneth W. Rhymer, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

21A01-1004-CR-174
Criminal. Affirms probation revocation.

Robert Browning v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1002-CR-122
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated as a Class C misdemeanor.

James N. Hamilton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1001-CR-29
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for receiving stolen property as a Class D felony.

Indiana Tax Court had 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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT