ILNews

Opinions Aug. 16, 2010

August 16, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Gail M. Flatow and Flatow Comer, LLP v. Dwane Ingalls
49A02-0910-CV-994
Civil. Reverses denial of Flatow and Flatow Comer’s motion for summary judgment in Ingalls’ suit for legal malpractice. There is no designated evidence in the malpractice litigation to show the result of Ingalls’ partial motion for summary judgment would have been any different had a reply been filed. As a matter of law, the Flatow defendants had no duty to provide the services Ingalls claims they were negligent in failing to provide.

Paternity of P.B.; D.B. v. M.B
03A01-1001-JP-5
Juvenile paternity. Reverses and remands denial of mother’s petition to modify parenting time. The preponderance standard should have been used as the burden of proof, not clear and convincing evidence. Affirms finding father wasn’t in contempt for keeping P.B. extra days over the Christmas holiday week, the denial of mother’s request father pay her attorney’s fees and P.B.’s therapist’s fees, and the modification of the Christmas parenting time schedule.

Teresa Perry v. Whitley County 4-H Clubs Inc.
92A03-1002-CT-101
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Whitely County 4-H Clubs on Perry’s negligence complaint for personal injuries suffered during a horse competition sponsored by the club. There is no genuine issue of material fact and the Indiana Equine Activity Statute bars her claim for injuries resulting from inherent risks of equine activities.

William R. Morell, III v. State of Indiana
06A04-0909-CR-531
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery by means of a deadly weapon as a Class C felony. The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion or commit reversible error by failing to swear the state’s witnesses and failing to allow questioning related to the alleged violations of the trial court’s separation order outside the presence of a jury. The cumulative effect of Morrell’s alleged errors don’t warrant reversal and there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Arvester Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1001-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony criminal confinement while armed with a deadly weapon and Williams’ aggregate sentence for criminal confinement as a Class B felony and possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as a Class B felony.

Brian A. Eby v. Jennifer L. Eby (NFP)
29A05-0909-CV-521
Civil. Reverses amended decree dissolving the Ebys’ marriage. Remands with instructions.

Matthew Donoho v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A05-0912-CR-717
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony theft and possession of marijuana, Class C felony burglary, and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.


Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted no transfers for the week ending Aug. 13.
 

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT