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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT