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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT