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. My husband left me and the kids for 2 years, i did everything humanly possible to get him back i prayed i even fasted nothing worked out. i was so diver-stated, i was left with nothing no money to pay for kids up keep. my life was tearing apart. i head that he was trying to get married to another lady in Italy, i look for urgent help then i found Dr.Mack in the internet by accident, i was skeptical because i don’t really believe he can bring husband back because its too long we have contacted each other, we only comment on each other status on Facebook and when ever he come online he has never talks anything about coming back to me, i really had to give Dr.Mack a chance to help me out, luckily for me he was God sent and has made everything like a dream to me, Dr.Mack told me that everything will be fine, i called him and he assured me that my Husband will return, i was having so many doubt but now i am happy,i can’t believe it my husband broke up with his Italian lady and he is now back to me and he can’t even stay a minute without me, all he said to me was that he want me back, i am really happy and i cried so much because it was unbelievable, i am really happy and my entire family are happy for me but they never know whats the secret behind this…i want you all divorce lady or single mother, unhappy relationship to please contact this man for help and everything will be fine i really guarantee you….if you want to contact him you can reach him through dr.mac@yahoo. com..,

  2. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  3. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  4. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  5. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

ADVERTISEMENT