ILNews

Opinions April 18, 2012

April 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Todd Walters and Matenia Walters v. Aaron Austin and Herman & Goetz, Inc.
20A04-1106-CT-342
Civil tort. Dismisses the Walterses’ appeal of the judgment on a jury verdict in favor of Austin and his employer on the Walterses’ complaint for damages arising from a multi-vehicle accident. The appellate court does not have jurisdiction. Judge Darden dissents.

Alebro, LLC v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Jason Scheidell
93A02-1110-EX-970
Agency appeal. Reverses grant of unemployment benefits to terminated employee Scheidell. Holds that if an employee’s explanation for the behavior that led to his termination is another terminable offense, that provides just cause for termination.

In Re the Adoption of K.B.M. and L.B.M.; T.M. v. R.P.F. (NFP)
39A01-1109-AD-423
Adoption. Affirms decision that biological father T.M.’s consent to the adoption by stepfather R.P.F. was not required.

In Re the Paternity of K.S.; J.S. v. M.M. (NFP)
17A03-1109-JP-438
Juvenile. Affirms trial court decision to continue joint legal custody, but reverses modification of primary physical custody to mother. Remands with instructions to enter an order addressing father’s contentions as to mother’s failure to pay costs. Judge Riley concurs in part, dissents in part, and would remand for sole legal custody to be awarded to either mother or father.

Chad Jeremy Orme v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1105-CR-233
Criminal. Reverses revocation of probation and sentence imposed.

Justin A. Staples v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A04-1109-CR-490
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony aiding, inducing or causing theft.

Margaret M. Hammond v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Porter County Commissioners (NFP)
93A02-1110-EX-956
Agency appeal. Affirms Hammond is ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Dennis Mikel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A04-1111-SC-598
Small claim. Affirms the trial court did not err in denying Mikel’s request for appointed counsel or in not conducting a jury trial on his complaint. The trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of the defendants. Reverses and remands for an assessment of damages.

Ramon Crawford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1108-CR-728
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of previously suspended portion of sentence.

Jason Myers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1105-CR-598
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury and Class B felony aggravated battery.

Huntington Copper, LLC v. Conner Sawmill, Inc. (NFP)
09A02-1110-PL-917
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of Huntington Copper’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Derrick Mays v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-CR-669
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery, Class D felony criminal recklessness and Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

Ronald Edward Madison, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1110-CR-597
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine.

Brandon Ray Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1108-CR-379
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery causing serious bodily injury.

Jason A. Reber v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A04-1107-CR-408
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor interference with reporting a crime.

Michael Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1112-CR-669
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.
 

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