ILNews

Opinions April 23, 2012

April 23, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Richard Leggs v. State of Indiana
49A02-1105-CR-522
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for one count of Class B felony criminal confinement and one count each of Class C felony intimidation, Class C felony criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Reverses one count of Class B felony criminal confinement, due to the continuing crime doctrine and remands for resentencing.

Nathan Abernathy v. Larry Bertram and Keith Broyles
33A04-1106-CC-317
Civil collection. Affirms trial court’s decision to omit the value of Abernathy’s crop insurance policy in the amount of damages it ordered Broyles to pay. Holds the trial court did not err when it denied Abernathy’s conversion claim because he did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Broyles and Bertram intended to exercise unauthorized control over Abernathy’s property.

Omni Insurance Group v. Lake Poage, Tonya Poage, Cody Bauer, Jill Bauer, Gary Bauer, and Allstate Insurance Company
92A03-1105-CT-208
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the appellees, holding that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether a teen was a resident of his mother’s household at the time of a crash and insured under her auto policy. Remands for trial.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.L.; P.L. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A04-1110-JT-625
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Michael Rimschneider v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1105-CR-414
Criminal. Affirms denial of request to withdraw guilty plea.

Rodney D. Bledsoe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1105-CR-442
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated, Class C infraction driving left of center, Class D felony possession of cocaine, and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

John A. Hawkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1108-PC-424
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In Re: The Marriage of Brenda S. Sanders and Paul R. Sanders, Paul R. Sanders v. Brenda S. Sanders (NFP)
76A03-1107-DR-398
Domestic relation. Affirms division of marital property and denies Brenda Sanders’ request for appellate attorney fees.

Jamal Rasheed Southern v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1107-CR-298
Criminal. Affirms denial of request for credit time.

In Re: The Marriage of Noelle Christine Green and Prentiss Lamont Green; Noelle Christine Green v. Prentiss Lamont Green (NFP)
49A02-1110-DR-932
Domestic relation. Dismisses appeal of magistrate’s entry regarding child support modification.

LBJA Investments, LLC v. Brian Kamuf and William K. Saalwaechter (NFP)
74A05-1105-PL-307
Civil plenary. Affirms court’s striking of portions of LBJA Investments’ motion for summary judgment, denial of its motion for summary judgment and grant of summary judgment in favor of Saalwaechter.

Alan Dwayne Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1110-CR-517
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies criminal recklessness and intimidation.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.K., F.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
57A03-1108-JT-374
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT