ILNews

Opinions April 13, 2011

April 13, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Douglas M. Grimes v. Victoria Crockrom, et al.
45A03-1008-CT-491
Civil tort. Affirms order that Grimes, Crockrom’s former attorney, produce Crockrom’s medical records he obtained while he was representing her. The trial court erred when it did so without first providing for the security of the attorney fees owed. Grimes has a valid retaining lien over Crockrom’s medical records. Remands with instructions that the court determine how much in attorney fees Grimes is owed and then order Crockrom to provide security for the payment of those fees.

D.G. v. State of Indiana
49A04-1006-JV-416
Juvenile. Reverses true finding that D.G. committed what would be Class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult. The failure to assess victim A.S.’s competency before testifying was an error and requires reversing the true finding. There is sufficient evidence to permit another hearing on the allegations. Remands for further proceedings.

Brett Boston v. State of Indiana
32A01-1008-CR-421
Criminal. Affirms on interlocutory appeal the denial of Boston’s motion to suppress the results of his blood alcohol test. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in retroactively applying the 2010 amendments to I.C. Section 9-30-6-6 and reliance, thereon, in denying Boston’s motion to suppress. The amendments were remedial in nature, motivated by strong and compelling reasons aimed at public safety and welfare, and did not violate constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto criminal sanctions.

Michael J. Cable v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1006-CR-386
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class D felony intimidation and one count of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

State of Indiana v. Mary McNeal (NFP)
84A05-1008-CR-485
Criminal. Affirms grant of McNeal’s motion to suppress.

Marvin L. Ervin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-123
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.H.; R.S. v. IDCS (NFP)
79A02-1009-JT-1166
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Lisa and Nicole Tanasijevic v. Alicia Bookwood (NFP)
45A03-1007-CT-364
Civil tort. Affirms verdict in favor of Bookwood on the Tanasijevics’ complaint following an auto accident.

Claudette Mee, et al. v. George Albers, M.D., et al. (NFP)
03A01-1007-CT-339
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict in favor of Dr. Albers and Southern Indiana OB/GYN on the Mees’ complaint for damages arising from alleged medical malpractice.

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT