ILNews

Opinions Sept. 7, 2011

September 7, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions from Indiana courts at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Christopher A. Andrews v. Sara L. Ivie
55A01-1103-PO-110
Protective order. Affirms issuance of a protective order in favor of Ivie. Andrews engaged in a knowing or an intentional course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of Ivie that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened.

Isaiah Christmas v. Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership d/b/a Windsor Estates Health and Rehabilitation Center
34A05-1101-CT-1
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Kindred Nursing Centers in Christmas’ complaint claiming injuries and alleging negligent maintenance of the sidewalk. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Christmas was invited to enter Windsor’s premises and as to whether Windsor breached its duty of care. Remands for further proceedings.

State of Indiana v. David G. Bruno, Jr. (NFP)
18A05-1102-CR-55
Criminal. Affirms grant of Bruno’s motion to suppress evidence.

Rodney G. Cooper v. State of Indiana (NFP)

82A01-1102-CR-48
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of methamphetamine.

Celina Insurance Company v. Indianapolis Roofing and Sheet, et al. (NFP)

49A02-1103-CT-196
Civil tort. Affirms order granting the cross-motions for summary judgment of Indianapolis Roofing and Sheet Metal Corp., Nazareth Building Services, and CE & M Inc., and denying Celina Insurance Co.’s motion for partial summary judgment in its subrogation action against them.

Shane William Kervin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1008-CR-474
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

David Malone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-CR-1226
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

K.T. v. Review Board, and F.C.I. (NFP)

93A02-1101-EX-75
Agency appeal. Reverses decision by the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development affirming the administrative law judge’s conclusion that K.T. left his employment without good cause and is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits. Remands for further proceedings.

Joseph M. Campbell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A04-1103-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony child molesting.

Joseph Dontaus Banks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1010-CR-547
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and Class D felony criminal recklessness. Remands with instructions to vacate Banks’ conviction of Class B misdemeanor reckless driving.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.E.B., K.H.B., Jr., and M.R.B.; C.M.B. v. IDCS (NFP)
02A03-1012-JT-665
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT