Opinions

Opinions Nov. 12, 2015

November 12, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Madison County Board of Commissioners and Madison County Highway Department v. American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Local 3609
33A05-1505-PL-409
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the union on the county’s motion to correct or vacate the arbitrator’s award, in which it reduced two union workers’ discipline from termination to a five-day unpaid layoff. The county circumvented the collective bargaining agreements’ progressive discipline scheme and the CBA does not require discharge for the infractions committed by the employees or prohibit the arbitrator from reducing an employee’s punishment.
More

Opinions Nov. 10, 2015

November 10, 2015
Indiana Supreme Court
John Hernandez v. State of Indiana
49S02-1511-CR-644
Criminal. Holds it was an error for the trial court to have refused giving Hernandez’s tendered final jury instruction on the defense of necessity because Hernandez presented some evidence to support the instruction. Vacates Hernandez’s Class A misdemeanor conviction of carrying a handgun without a license and remands for a new trial.
More

Opinions Nov. 9, 2015

November 9, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert L. Woods v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
27A05-1502-CR-61
Criminal. Affirms Woods’ convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and 100-year sentence.
More

Opinions Nov. 6, 2015

November 6, 2015
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
BRC Rubber & Plastics Inc. v. Continental Carbon Company
14-1416, 14-1555
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey.
Civil. Vacates judgment for BRC on its lawsuit that Continental Carbon had breached and repudiated the contract for it to supply carbon black to BRC. The agreement did not obligate BRC to buy any or all of its carbon black from Continental, so the trial court erred in concluding the contract was a requirements contract. Remands without reaching BRC’s cross-appeal related to damages.  
 
More

Opinions Nov. 5, 2015

November 5, 2015
Indiana Supreme Court
Latoya Lee v. State of Indiana
49S02-1511-CR-638
Criminal. Reverses Lee’s conviction of attempted aggravated battery as a lesser included offense of a murder charge dismissed by the court and remands with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal. Charging murder, or conspiracy to commit murder, by shooting does not, without more, give fair notice of lesser included charges based on a beating. It was fundamental error to convict her based on a critical operative fact the state never pleaded and in fact disclaimed at trial.
More

Opinions Nov. 4, 2015

November 4, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Mario Allen v. Wendy Knight, Superintendent of Correctional Industrial Facility (mem. dec.)
48A02-1505-MI-416
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court decision to transfer Allen’s petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the county of his incarceration to the county where he was tried and sentenced.
More

Opinions Nov. 2, 2015

November 2, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Chris Harkins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
15A01-1412-CR-553
Criminal. Affirms conviction of five counts of Class C felony forgery, two counts each of Class D felony identity deception and credit card fraud, Class A misdemeanor deception, and a jury’s adjudication of Harkins as a habitual offender. The trial court did not err in denying Harkins’ motions for severance, continuance and to exclude evidence. The convictions did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. 
More

Opinions Oct. 30, 2015

October 30, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Brooks Berg v. State of Indiana
32A01-1504-CR-127
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony operating while intoxicated and Class B misdemeanor reckless driving. Berg argued the state violated his double jeopardy rights under Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999), when it used the evidence it had presented to the jury to support the reckless-driving charge to demonstrate the endangerment element of the operating-while-intoxicated charge. The state conceded the argument, but the court rejected the reasoning as a misunderstanding of Richardson, because one offense required intoxication and the other required the act of reckless driving.
More

Opinions Oct. 29, 2015

October 29, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc., Sierra Club, Inc., and Valley Watch, Inc. v. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. d/b/a Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc., Ind. Utility Regulatory
93A02-1502-EX-110
Agency action. Reverses approval of Vectren’s proposal to modify current coal-powered generating stations and request for financial incentives and reimbursement from ratepayers for costs associated with the projects by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. The commission erred in failing to make findings on the factors listed in I.C. 8-1-8.7-3. Remands with instructions for commission to make the required findings.
More

Opinions Oct. 28, 2015

October 28, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Andre L. Owens v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A05-1503-CR-98
Criminal. Affirms Owens’ conviction of Class A misdemeanor trespass, finding the state presented sufficient evidence.
More

Opinions Oct. 27, 2015

October 27, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Jonathan E. Powell v. State of Indiana
49A02-1503-CR-135
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. The state failed to prove Powell was on the bar’s property when an off-duty police officer asked him to leave.
More

Opinions Oct. 26, 2015

October 26, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Robbie Lomax v. Jennie L. Michael

12A05-1503-CT-124
Civil tort. Reverses final judgment against Lomax in his wrongful death action against Michael, in which the trial court granted partial summary judgment in Michael’s favor based on its conclusion that Lomax does not qualify as a dependent next of kin as required by the General Wrongful Death Statute. A question of fact exists as to whether Lomax is a dependent next of kin to Edward Lomax. Remands for further proceedings.
More

Opinions Oct. 23, 2015

October 23, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Russell A. Prosser, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
50A05-1502-CR-51
Criminal. Affirms convictions for 11 counts, including theft and unauthorized entry of a vehicle, following two separate jury trials. Prosser waived his challenge to a witness’s in-court identification of him, and there is sufficient evidence to support the convictions.
More

Opinions Oct. 22, 2015

October 22, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Eric Brazier d/b/a Brazier Painting v. Maple Lane Apartments I, LLC
71A04-1406-CC-278
Civil collection. Affirms judgment in favor of Maple Lane Apartments on Brazier’s lawsuit alleging he had performed more than $60,000 in painting services and had not been paid. The trial court also imposed sanctions against his counsel toward Maple Lane’s attorney fees because his attorney misrepresented the nature of the documents on which Brazier based his entire case.
More

Opinions Oct. 21, 2015

October 21, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Loren J. Adams v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, and F&J Pizza III LLC (mem. dec.)
93A02-1501-EX-16
Agency action. Affirms denial of claim for unemployment benefits.
More

Opinions Oct. 19, 2015

October 19, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
G.T. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1504-JV-239
Juvenile. Affirms restitution order.
More

Opinions Oct. 16, 2015

October 16, 2015
Indiana Supreme Court
Robert A. Masters v. Leah Masters
02S04-1504-DR-156
Domestic. Affirms award of attorney fees in a dissolution of marriage case to an arbitrator under the Family Law Arbitration Act. The award of attorney fees in this case is supported by the findings, and Robert Masters failed to show clear error as prescribed by Trial Rule 52(A).
More

Opinions Oct. 15, 2015

October 15, 2015
Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of: Anonymous
79S00-1508-DI-512
Discipline. Issues private reprimand after finding attorney engaged in misconduct by communicating ex parte with a judge without authorization to do so, a violation of Professional Conduct Rule 3.5(b).
More

Opinions Oct. 14, 2015

October 14, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Travis Allen v. State of Indiana
49A05-1410-CR-501
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanors operating a vehicle while intoxicated and driving with a suspended license, and Class C felony driving without a license. The total days of delay charged to the state in bringing Allen to trial is 363 days, so Allen is not entitled to discharge under Criminal rule 4(C) and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his motion. Judge Barnes dissents.
More

Opinions Oct. 13, 2015

October 13, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Scott A. Criswell v. State of Indiana
02A03-1501-CR-22
Criminal. Reverses denial of Criswell’s motion to suppress a statement given as part of an internal police investigation into his involvement in the break in and theft of items from a home. Remands with instructions to grant the motion to suppress the statement as well as any other evidence that was directly or indirectly derived from the statement.
More

Opinions Oct. 9, 2015

October 9, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals Allen Gray Limited Partnership IV v. Bishop Mumford, Christopher Mumford, Elizabeth B. Mumford, Richardson S. Mumford, Thomas F. Mumford, Jr., and William M. Mumford
26A01-1503-MI-92
Miscellaneous. Affirms summary judgment for the Mumford family. The trial court correctly determined the reservation applied to the surface area of the “drilling unit” and did not restrict the Mumfords from making the reserved wells deeper.
More

Opinions Oct. 8, 2015

October 8, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert E. Quinn v. State of Indiana
20A03-1503-CR-82
Criminal. Affirms convictions of child molesting and criminal confinement, both Class B felonies. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the state’s employees acted reasonably in the manner in which they maintained, discovered and tested DNA evidence that led to Quinn’s convictions, thereby establishing the due diligence requirement of I.C. 35-41-4-2(b).
More

Opinions Oct. 7, 2015

October 7, 2015
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Tom Allen Manuel v. J.A. Terris
15-1392
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Civil. Affirms denial of petition for habeas corpus, directed at the prison warden, for a reduction of Manuel’s prison sentence. The period that Manuel wants credited against his federal sentence had already been credited toward his state sentence.
More

Opinions Oct. 6, 2015

October 6, 2015
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Bryana Bible, Individually and on Behalf of the Proposed Class v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc.
14-1806
Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Civil. Denies petition for rehearing en banc of the panel decision. The panel reversed and remanded the District Court’s dismissal of Bible’s complaint against a creditor in a student loan default case. None of the panelists who wrote three separate opinions, nor other Circuit judges, favored rehearing en banc. Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a concurrence to underscore that deference to federal agency positions affirmed in Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), has been assailed by recent Supreme Court rulings suggesting that decision “may not be long for this world.”
More

Opinions Oct. 5, 2015

October 5, 2015
Indiana Court of Appeals
Ronald C. Weyland v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
48A04-1409-CR-446
Criminal. Judges L. Mark Bailey and Michael Barnes grant rehearing and remand to the trial court to resentence Weyland. Judge Patricia Riley votes to deny the petition for rehearing.
More
Page  << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >> pager
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

  2. GMA Ranger, I, too, was warned against posting on how the Ind govt was attempting to destroy me professionally, and visit great costs and even destitution upon my family through their processing. No doubt the discussion in Indy today is likely how to ban me from this site (I expect I soon will be), just as they have banned me from emailing them at the BLE and Office of Bar Admission and ADA coordinator -- or, if that fails, whether they can file a complaint against my Kansas or SCOTUS law license for telling just how they operate and offering all of my files over the past decade to any of good will. The elitist insiders running the Hoosier social control mechanisms realize that knowledge and a unified response will be the end of their unjust reign. They fear exposure and accountability. I was banned for life from the Indiana bar for questioning government processing, that is, for being a whistleblower. Hoosier whistleblowers suffer much. I have no doubt, Gma Ranger, of what you report. They fear us, but realize as long as they keep us in fear of them, they can control us. Kinda like the kids' show Ants. Tyrannical governments the world over are being shaken by empowered citizens. Hoosiers dealing with The Capitol are often dealing with tyranny. Time to rise up: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/17/governments-struggling-to-retain-trust-of-citizens-global-survey-finds Back to the Founders! MAGA!

  3. Science is showing us the root of addiction is the lack of connection (with people). Criminalizing people who are lonely is a gross misinterpretation of what data is revealing and the approach we must take to combat mental health. Harsher crimes from drug dealers? where there is a demand there is a market, so make it legal and encourage these citizens to be functioning members of a society with competitive market opportunities. Legalize are "drugs" and quit wasting tax payer dollars on frivolous incarceration. The system is destroying lives and doing it in the name of privatized profits. To demonize loneliness and destroy lives in the land of opportunity is not freedom.

  4. Good luck, but as I have documented in three Hail Mary's to the SCOTUS, two applications (2007 & 2013),a civil rights suit and my own kicked-to-the-curb prayer for mandamus. all supported in detailed affidavits with full legal briefing (never considered), the ISC knows that the BLE operates "above the law" (i.e. unconstitutionally) and does not give a damn. In fact, that is how it was designed to control the lawyers. IU Law Prof. Patrick Baude blew the whistle while he was Ind Bar Examiner President back in 1993, even he was shut down. It is a masonic system that blackballs those whom the elite disdain. Here is the basic thrust:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackballing When I asked why I was initially denied, the court's foremost jester wrote back that the ten examiners all voted, and I did not gain the needed votes for approval (whatever that is, probably ten) and thus I was not in .. nothing written, no explanation, just go away or appeal ... and if you appeal and disagree with their system .. proof positive you lack character and fitness. It is both arbitrary and capricious by its very design. The Hoosier legal elites are monarchical minded, and rejected me for life for ostensibly failing to sufficiently respect man's law (due to my stated regard for God's law -- which they questioned me on, after remanding me for a psych eval for holding such Higher Law beliefs) while breaking their own rules, breaking federal statutory law, and violating federal and state constitutions and ancient due process standards .. all well documented as they "processed me" over many years.... yes years ... they have few standards that they will not bulldoze to get to the end desired. And the ISC knows this, and they keep it in play. So sad, And the fed courts refuse to do anything, and so the blackballing show goes on ... it is the Indy way. My final experience here: https://www.scribd.com/document/299040062/Brown-ind-Bar-memo-Pet-cert I will open my files to anyone interested in seeing justice dawn over Indy. My cases are an open book, just ask.

  5. Looks like 2017 will be another notable year for these cases. I have a Grandson involved in a CHINS case that should never have been. He and the whole family are being held hostage by CPS and the 'current mood' of the CPS caseworker. If the parents disagree with a decision, they are penalized. I, along with other were posting on Jasper County Online News, but all were quickly warned to remove posts. I totally understand that some children need these services, but in this case, it was mistakes, covered by coorcement of father to sign papers, lies and cover-ups. The most astonishing thing was within 2 weeks of this child being placed with CPS, a private adoption agency was asking questions regarding child's family in the area. I believe a photo that was taken by CPS manager at the very onset during the CHINS co-ocerment and the intent was to make money. I have even been warned not to post or speak to anyone regarding this case. Parents have completed all requirements, met foster parents, get visitation 2 days a week, and still the next court date is all the way out till May 1, which gives them(CPS) plenty of to time make further demands (which I expect) No trust of these 'seasoned' case managers, as I have already learned too much about their dirty little tricks. If they discover that I have posted here, I expect they will not be happy and penalized parents again. Still a Hostage.

ADVERTISEMENT