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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT