ILNews

Opinions April 10, 2013

April 10, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Kevin B. McCarthy, et al., and Langsenkamp Family Apostolate, et al. v. Patricia Ann Fuller, et al.
12-2157, 12-2257, 12-2262
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. The District Court’s denial of McCarthy’s motion that the court take judicial notice of the Holy See’s rulings on Fuller’s status in the Roman Catholic Church is reversed, with a reminder to the district court that federal courts are not empowered to decide (or to allow juries to decide) religious questions. The other two appeals are dismissed.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Valentin Escobedo v. State of Indiana
71A03-1202-CR-60
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class A felony battery and Class D felony neglect of a dependent. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Dr. Stephens to testify while limiting his testimony or in allowing the state to present rebuttal evidence.

Harold Haggerty v. Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Merom Generating Station
77A01-1206-CT-293
Civil tort. Affirms grant of summary judgment to Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative Inc. on Haggerty’s negligence claim. Hoosier Energy successfully negated the element of duty in Haggerty’s negligence claim.

In the Matter of A.W. & C.S., Children in Need of Services; and L.D., Mother v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1208-JC-692
Juvenile. Affirms determination that the two minor children are children in need of services.

Jake E. Estes v. State of Indiana (NFP)

39A01-1205-CR-214
Criminal.  Affirms conviction and sentence for dealing in marijuana as a Class D felony. Reverses and remands with instructions that the court vacate Estes’ conviction of possession of marijuana as a Class D felony based on double jeopardy principles. Judge Bailey dissents.

Timothy Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A04-1211-PC-591
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jeff Rolston and Jana Rolston v. Brad's Realty and Property Management, LLC, and Dan L. Bradbury (NFP)
20A04-1209-CC-489
Civil collection. Affirms denial of the Rolstons’ motion to correct error on the judgment denying their claim for fraud, and the denial of Brad’s Realty’s motion to have the Rolstons pay attorney fees.

Demetrius Damon Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1205-CR-230
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony rape, Class B felony criminal confinement enhanced because of the use of a firearm, Class D felony criminal recklessness, Class B felony robbery, Class A felony burglary, two counts of Class D felony theft and determination Taylor is a habitual offender.

Kevin Hester v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-CR-381
Criminal. Affirms sentence for murder.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by 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