Judge Ezra H. Friedlander
Judges: Court should have questioned jurors
July 15, 2009
Jennifer NelsonJudges on the Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed as to whether a man's murder conviction should be overturned because
the trial court failed to investigate the impact of threats made against the jury. The majority determined the lack of action
by the trial court resulted in a fundamental error that required reversing the conviction, but that he could be retried.
MoreForged agreement presents question of fact
April 29, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA company that forged a former employee's non-compete contract and later sued and settled with another company over that
false document isn't entitled to summary judgment in a new suit brought by the other company after it learned the document
was forged, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.
MoreTeen's Fourth Amendment rights not violated
March 9, 2009
Jennifer NelsonDebating in a footnote whether a juvenile's argument that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated was subject to a Terry
stop analysis, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided to apply the Terry analysis to his case.
MoreSexual misconduct doesn't fall under MedMal act
November 6, 2008
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals today affirmed a trial court determination that an employee's sexual conduct with a patient
can't constitute a rendition of health care or professional services, so a negligent hiring complaint against a hospital
based on that conduct doesn't fall under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act.
More
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!