Indiana Court of Appeals
Traffic infraction not necessary for police stop
September 11, 2009
Jennifer NelsonEven though a police officer didn't see a driver commit any traffic infractions before pulling him over, the officer could
stop the car because he believed the driver might have been injured or impaired, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed today.
MoreLawyer failed to deny note execution under oath
September 11, 2009
Jennifer NelsonBecause an attorney acting pro se in a mortgage suit didn't include a statement in his general denial that the denial
was truthful and made under penalty for perjury, he failed to deny under oath the execution of the note, the Indiana Court
of Appeals ruled today.
MoreCourt rules on LLC matter of first impression
September 10, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide for the first time whether a company owes a continuing fiduciary duty to a former
shareholder or member to accurately report the company's fiscal results to the IRS for a year in which the former member
held stock or was still a member of the limited liability company.
MoreLawyer entitled to $1.05 million default judgment
September 10, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a default judgment in favor of an Indiana attorney because an Illinois attorney demonstrated
"contumacious disregard" for a trial court's orders.
MoreCourt split on ineffective trial counsel
September 9, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed that an attorney was ineffective because the majority found the attorney
told her client he "should" win the case whereas one judge pointed out in the record the attorney admitted to telling
the client he "would" win.
MoreConsent not defense in battery case
September 9, 2009
Jennifer NelsonBecause consent is not a defense to battery when a deadly weapon is used, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a man's
convictions of felony and misdemeanor battery on his girlfriend after branding her with a hot knife and hitting her with a
cord.
MoreJudges differ on application of high court ruling
September 8, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAn Indiana Court of Appeals judge dissented from his colleagues today in a ruling involving the ownership of certain joint
accounts because he believed an Indiana Supreme Court decision was binding in the case.
MoreFirst impression in jury rule issue
September 2, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe participation of alternate jurors in discussions of evidence during recesses from trial, as allowed under Indiana Jury
Rule 20(a)(8), doesn't violate Indiana statute that prevents alternates from participating in deliberations. The Indiana
Court of Appeals ruled on the matter for the first time today.
MoreCourt erred in denying court-appointed counsel
September 2, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a man's convictions because the trial court failed to adequately ascertain whether
he was indigent for purposes of court-appointed counsel.
MoreJudges disagree on search validity
August 31, 2009
Jennifer NelsonOn remand from the Supreme Court of the United States to reconsider under a recent ruling, the Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed
the forfeiture of a woman's car following the arrest of her son for driving while suspended. One judge dissented because
she believes the search of the vehicle was unreasonable in light of the recent ruling.
MoreAmended ordinance doesn't apply to travel plaza
August 31, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAn Allen Superior Court correctly ruled that a travel plaza had a vested right to develop its plans under an original zoning
ordinance, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed today.
MoreJudges disagree on remand instructions
August 28, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIndiana Court of Appeals judges unanimously agreed today that a defendant's petition for expungement of his arrest shouldn't
have been denied by the trial court, but they disagreed as to what should happen on remand.
MoreInstant offense considered 'unrelated' per statute
August 28, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe trial court was correct in interpreting the state's habitual offender statute to include an instant conviction as
one of the "unrelated" convictions referred to in the statute, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreCOA: Business is a nuisance to homeowners
August 26, 2009
Jennifer NelsonDespite modifications to a mycelium-drying business located adjacent to a farmhouse, the business is still a nuisance that
deprives the homeowners from the free use and enjoyment of their property, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.
MoreHearing didn't consider all statutory factors
August 25, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn a modification of physical custody case, the Indiana Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings because the trial
court was required to hear evidence on and consider all of the factors listed in Indiana Code Section 31-17-2.2-1(b).
MoreWorker's suicide fails chain of causation test
August 21, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA widow's request for workers' compensation benefits of her deceased husband can't be granted because his death at work was
caused by a knowingly self-inflicted injury, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today. The woman failed to satisfy the chain
of causation test in trying to prove an initial work-related event led to her husband's death.
MoreJudges disagree if testimony is hypothetical
August 18, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIndiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed over whether two doctors' expert witness testimony in a medical malpractice
case used hypothetical language that couldn't raise a genuine issue of fact.
MoreIDEM could fire employee for ethics violation
August 17, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe state's Ethics Commission correctly concluded an Indiana Department of Environmental Management employee violated
a provision of the ethics code when he bought gas with a state-issued credit card at a gas station he partly owned.
MoreTrial court erred in denying motion to continue
August 17, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA Marion Superior trial court should have granted a woman's motion to continue the day of her bench trial because she
had a constitutional right to present a defense to support her involuntary intoxication argument, the Indiana Court of Appeals
decided today.
MoreCOA rules on parenting time restriction
August 14, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIndiana Court of Appeals judges had differing opinions as to whether the trial court was required to enter findings during
a hearing in which a mother's parenting time was restricted.
MoreState's policy in court doesn't violate constitution
August 12, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe state's refusal to waive jury trials in one Marion Superior Court doesn't violate the constitutional rights of
the mentally ill defendants who appear in that court, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.
MoreCOA disagrees on damages to bidder
August 12, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIndiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed today whether a company should be entitled to damages when it lowered its bid for
work at a state-run hospital based on fraudulent information from another bidder.
MoreArguments Thursday in infant sleeping death
August 12, 2009
IL StaffThe Indiana Court of Appeals will hear arguments tomorrow in a negligence suit filed by parents after their infant died while
sleeping on a couch with his mother.
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.