ILNews

Opinions April 24, 2012

April 24, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

George Clements v. Kimberly Hall and Stanley Harmon
06A04-1106-MI-282
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s award of summary judgment for Kimberly Hall and Stanley Harmon, holding their attorney failed to notify George Clements and his attorney that a motion had been filed. Remands for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Shawn A. Keckler, Kari Felda, Special Admin. to the Estate of Ryan S. Holloway, Janice Norman, Dewayne Scott, Timothy J. Boganwright, et al. v. Meridian Security Insurance Company

43A03-1112-PL-551
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Meridian Security Insurance Company, holding the company failed to prove that a driver who caused a fatal crash had violated an exclusionary clause in the policy. Holds that failing to pay for claims arising from the crash would have drastic consequences for those injured and killed in the crash, and remands for further proceedings.

Delbert Conklin v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Carter Express, Inc.
93A02-1109-EX-864
Civil. Reverses finding that Delbert Conklin was not entitled to unemployment benefits because of his momentary loss of consciousness that caused him to veer off the road and damage the truck he was driving for Carter Express, and its contents. Holds that no evidence suggests Conklin is to blame for that incident and he therefore did not breach a duty to Carter and should receive unemployment benefits.

Michael L. Crowe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1108-CR-420
Criminal. Affirms sentences for two counts of Class C felony forgery, one count of Class D felony receiving stolen property and Class D felony theft.

Harold W. Reynolds v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1109-CR-468
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order that Harold Reynolds serve the remaining 12 months of his previously suspended sentence for violation of his work release requirements.

Releford Green, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1107-CR-320
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery; reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery on double jeopardy grounds and remands with instruction that the trial court vacate the conviction and sentence on that count.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.B., D.B., and D.S.; M.B. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
30A04-1110-JT-554
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

In Re The Marriage of: Leanne Kathleen Johnson v. Florenzo Johnson (NFP)
49A02-1109-DR-852
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s grant of father’s petition to modify joint legal custody, awarding full custody of two children to father.

Indiana Supreme Court accepted no cases on transfer for the week ending April 20.
 

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