Dissent
Lawyers’ divorce battle divides COA on joint custody ruling
April 30, 2013
Dave StaffordA lengthy divorce proceeding involving two Fort Wayne attorneys that raised numerous issues on appeal was mostly affirmed
Tuesday, but a dissenting judge cautioned that joint custody was not in the interest of the of the feuding parents’
daughter.
MoreJustices reaffirm ruling on sentence enhancements under habitual offender statute
March 21, 2013
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court Thursday granted the state’s request for a rehearing in a case in which the justices determined
that Anthony Dye’s sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, which was enhanced under
the general habitual offender statute, was an impermissible double enhancement.
MoreJustices vacate transfer to negligent design case
March 20, 2013
IL StaffThe Indiana Supreme Court issued an order Monday vacating its grant of transfer to a case filed by a man rendered a quadriplegic
after he fell out of a company truck’s utility bucket while working for Richmond Power.
MoreMajority affirms trial court in failed lease suit
December 7, 2012
Jennifer NelsonThe majority on the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in favor of a leasing company on a suit
brought by the homeowners after the lessees failed to pay their rent.
MoreCOA splits over reversing possession conviction
December 7, 2012
Jennifer NelsonA divided Court of Appeals upheld a man’s possession of marijuana conviction that stemmed from a 911 call. Dissenting
Judge James Kirsch doesn’t believe that the providing of a name by a 911 caller removes this case from the category
of an anonymous caller, thus the call doesn’t give police enough evidence to stop the car the defendant was in.
MoreCourt split over valid ID requirement for name change
December 5, 2012
Jennifer NelsonThe Court of Appeals concluded Wednesday that the trial court erred when it required a valid driver’s license or state
identification card as a prerequisite to grant a petition for a name change under Indiana Code 34-28-2, but split over whether
an elderly man can change his name because he’s never had a valid state-issued ID.
MoreQuestion over spirit in which statements were made is enough for jury to deliberate
September 21, 2012
Marilyn OdendahlA defamation suit against an employee will proceed following the Indiana Court of Appeals' finding that there is doubt as
to what conclusion a jury could reach in determining whether statements were made in good faith and without malice.
MoreDivided justices reject opposing summary judgments in church split
July 31, 2012
Dave StaffordNeither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals got it right in a dispute between an Evansville Presbyterian church and its
former denomination when the church left over simmering disagreements on abortion and other matters of doctrine, the Indiana
Supreme Court ruled in a 3-2 decision.
MoreSupreme Court divided on whether man's claims against bank can proceed
July 31, 2012
Jennifer NelsonTwo Indiana justices believed that a man’s actual fraud and tortious interference with contract claims against Old National
Bank should go to trial, an opposite conclusion reached by their fellow justices.
MoreSupreme Court knocks down habitual-offender enhancement
July 31, 2012
Marilyn OdendahlThe Indiana Supreme Court found a habitual-offender enhancement tacked onto the 20-year sentence of a serious violent felon
was an “impermissible double enhancement.”
MoreJustices reverse Tax Court, determine Miller Brewing owes
July 27, 2012
Dave StaffordMiller Brewing owes $806,366 in income tax on beer transported by common carriers to Indiana from its Milwaukee brewery, the
Indiana Supreme Court determined in a ruling Thursday that reversed the state Tax Court, ending a decade-long dispute.
MoreTrial in absentia did not violate due process
July 3, 2012
Kelly LucasThe due process rights of a man charged with two counts of Class C felony non-support of a dependent child were not violated
when he was tried in absentia and without trial counsel, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.
MoreDivided Supreme Court orders new murder trial
March 23, 2012
Michael HoskinsThree justices have tossed out a murder conviction, ordering a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge should have given
the jury the option to consider a lesser offense of reckless homicide.
MoreSplit COA reverses trial court in personal injury case
December 30, 2011
Jenny MontgomeryTwo Indiana Court of Appeals judges reversed a trial court’s denial of a woman’s motion for prejudgment interest
in a case stemming from a car crash.
MoreCourt won't remove trial judge in Simon case
November 17, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal filed by Melvin Simon’s widow, finding that it doesn’t have
jurisdiction to remove a Hamilton Superior judge from the case involving the late mall-magnate’s estate valued at more
than $2 billion.
MoreJustices clarify police resistance ruling
September 28, 2011
Michael HoskinsEmphasizing that it’s not trampling on the Fourth Amendment and allowing police to illegally enter one’s home,
the Indiana Supreme Court has revisited a case it decided four months ago and reinforced its ruling that residents don’t
have a common law right to resist police entering one’s home.
MoreSupreme Court upholds Barnes ruling
September 20, 2011
Michael HoskinsEmphasizing that it’s not trampling on the Fourth Amendment, the Indiana Supreme Court has revisited a ruling it made
four months ago and upheld its holding that residents don’t have a common law right to resist police entering a person’s
home.
MoreJustices stand firm on Barnes decision
September 20, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Supreme Court has revisited a ruling it made four months ago in Richard Barnes v. State, affirming its
initial holding that residents do not have a common law right to resist police in any situation.
MoreCOA orders new trial for overly talkative defendant
September 14, 2011
Jenny MontgomeryIn a divided opinion, the Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court’s denial of motion for mistrial, holding
that the court went too far in physically preventing a defendant from speaking.
MoreJustices split on appellate review of prisoner litigant's claim
September 13, 2011
Michael HoskinsOne of Indiana's most well-known pro se prisoner litigants convinced two of the state justices that his latest appeal
should get their attention, but the other three denied transfer relating to how the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed the
case.
MoreDefense attorneys lose appeal for compensation
August 29, 2011
Michael HoskinsTwo private defense lawyers in Marion County failed to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that they should be retroactively
appointed by the Marion County Public Defender Agency and compensated for their legal work on a case that has an intricate
maze of attorney representation over the course of five years.
MoreJustices reduce sentence of man found asleep in office
July 21, 2011
Jennifer NelsonFour of the five Indiana Supreme Court justices decided that the man found asleep in the waiting room of a dental office –
who had an empty handgun on him – should only be sentenced to 20 years for the crime instead of 40 years.
MoreAppeals court splits on new sentence modification issue
July 18, 2011
Jennifer NelsonAn inmate’s request for a sentence modification has divided the Indiana Court of Appeals, with the majority concluding
that the 365-day period during which a trial court could grant a modification begins when someone is originally sentenced,
not re-resentenced after a successful appeal.
MoreJudge: Man did not commit attempted child exploitation
July 18, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals split on whether a man committed attempted child exploitation when he tried to take pictures
up teenagers’ skirts at a mall using a camera attached to his shoe.
MoreJustices split on recovery of attorney fees under Adult Wrongful Death Statute
June 30, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court issued three opinions June 29 dealing with what fees are recoverable under the Adult Wrongful Death
Statute, holding that attorney fees, litigation expenses, and loss of services can be recovered. Chief Justice Randall T.
Shepard and Justice Robert Rucker dissented in each decision, believing that those fees aren’t allowed under the statute.
More
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Lawyer who emailed nude film clip to harm ex-intern suspended 3 years
-
More than half of Conour’s inventoried assets gone, feds say
-
Indianapolis law firm Stewart & Irwin closing
-
Longest-practicing female attorney in Indiana has no plans to retire
-
Criminal code and expungement bills signed by governor
-
Lawyer who emailed nude film clip to harm ex-intern suspended 3 years
-
Indianapolis law firm Stewart & Irwin closing
-
More than half of Conour’s inventoried assets gone, feds say
-
SCOTUS rules against Indiana farmer in seed patent case
-
Social media sleuths find evidence, but admissibility requires authentication
Court Calendar
-
May 24, 2013 Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Judy Holcomb, Personal Representative of the Estate of Mable Louise Cochran, deceased - 5/24/13
-
May 28, 2013 The Estate of Richard A. Mayer and Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty, P.C., v. Lax, Inc., and David Lasco - 5/28/13
-
June 12, 2013 Northern Assurance Company of America v. Thomson, Inc., et al. - 6/12/13
-
June 18, 2013 State of Indiana v. Robert Owens - 6/18/13
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.