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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT