Trial court had the ability to consider simultaneously both the CHINS action and the Foster Parents’ petition to adopt Child; trial court erred, however, when it determined that DCS’s withholding of consent to the adoption was not in Child’s best interest.
M. Barnes
Harrison v. Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC, No. 49A04-0912-CV-722, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 29, 2010)
Water company was not a governmental entity or a political subdivision of the State entitled to the protections of the Indiana Tort Claims Act.
Elliott v. Rush Memorial Hosp., No. 70A01-0911-CV-553, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., June 11, 2010)
Where hospital employee forcibly catheterized plaintiff for a urine sample after an oral statement from the police that the sample was court ordered, plaintiff’s complaint adequately stated factual issues as to whether: (1) the sample was obtained pursuant to a written request, (2) the taking of the sample constituted reasonable force, and (3) forced catheterization constituted a “medically accepted manner” for obtaining a urine sample, all pursuant to Ind. Code § 9-30-6-6. Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s medical malpractice complaint, however, because plaintiff was not a “patient” of the defendants.
Wiggins v. State, No. 45A03-0912-CR-613, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 24, 2010)
Prisoner’s ex post facto challenge to sex offender registration should be brought under new statutory procedure in IC 11-8-8-22.
Brogan v. State, No. 57A04-0910-CR-592, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 6, 2010)
When sentence for sex offense was completely served, and original sentencing order did not require sex offender registration, and offender was imprisoned in another county for an unrelated offense when he filed his “motion” under sex offense cause number to be relieved of statute-imposed registration duty on ex post facto grounds, the sex offense court was not the appropriate forum for the registration challenge.