ILNews

Opinins July 8, 2011

July 8, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
John A. Logan v. Donna Wilkins, M.D., et. al.
10-1415
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms decision of district court that Logan is not entitled to amend his initial complaint, holding that he had already been given the opportunity to do so but had not amended.

The Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Stacey R. Huddleston, Jr. v. State of Indiana
20A05-1012-PC-813
Post-conviction relief petition. Reverses murder conviction, holding that while Huddleston had pleaded guilty to murder, he clearly and unequivocally stated during the factual basis colloquy that he did not intend for the victim to be killed, nor did he anticipate that another party would kill the victim.

Doe Corporation v. Lolita C. Honore, et al.
49A05-1007-MI-408
Miscellaneous. Clarifies a previous opinion at the request of Honore.

Kelly Barngrover v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-CR-1270
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony neglect of a dependent. Reverses conviction for Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, holding the state had not proved the paraphernalia would have been discovered during a lawful inventory search of Barngrover’s vehicle.

Jason L. Foltz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1011-CR-614
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Ashley Storm v. Kyle Storm (NFP)
32A01-1010-DR-535
Divorce resolution. Affirms trial court’s decision to bar Ashley Storm’s boyfriend from contact with her children, citing his prior domestic battery charge. Remands to trial court for recalculation and distribution of marital estate, citing improper valuation of assets and remands for explanation of deviation from parenting time guidelines.

Doe Corporation v. Lolita C. Honore, et al.

49A05-1007-MI-408
Miscellaneous. Clarifies a previous opinion at the request of Honore.

Rollander Enterprises, Inc. and Indy Investments, LLC v. H.C. Nutting Company (NFP)
15A01-1008-CC-430
Collections. Affirms trial court’s judgment in favor of H.C. Nutting Company.

The Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT