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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT