ILNews

Opinions April 25, 2012

April 25, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

John Ludack v. State of Indiana
49A02-1109-CR-930
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and aggregate 130-year sentence for two counts of Class A felony child molesting and being a habitual offender. Defense counsel, by first asking the detective whether Ludack had admitted the allegations of child molestation during the interview, opened the door to the detective’s testimony that Ludack neither admitted nor denied the allegations of child molesting and just asked to stop speaking. Ludack also failed to prove his sentence is inappropriate.

The Kroger Co. v. WC Associates, LLC, as successor in interest to Metro Acquisitions, LLC
49A05-1108-PL-412
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment to WC Associates on its breach of contract claim against Kroger over its modifications of a sign and the trial court properly granted WC’s request for sanctions. Reverses summary judgment on WC’s claims of criminal mischief, criminal trespass and criminal conversion. Kroger did not have criminal intent when it modified the sign pylon. Grants WC’s request for appellate attorney fees only relating to the breach of contract claim. Remands for further proceedings.

D.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1109-JV-885
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

Clarence Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1109-CR-496
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Abraham Patterson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1110-CR-1005
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Marsha Spurr v. Robert Spurr (NFP)
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2012/april/04251201lmb.pdf
29A04-1108-DR-416
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of Marsha Spurr’s motion to correct error, which challenged the dissolution court’s order determining that daughter, S.S., was emancipated for purposes of determining child support owed by Robert Spurr. Chief Judge Robb dissents. Remands for further proceedings.
 

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 was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  2. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  3. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  4. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

  5. Once again Indiana has not only shown what little respect it has for animals, but how little respect it has for the welfare of the citizens of the state. Dumping manure in a pond will most certainly pollute the environment and ground water. Who thought of this spiffy plan? No doubt the livestock industry. So all the citizens of Indiana have to suffer pollution for the gain of a few livestock producers who are only concerned about their own profits at the expense of everyone else who lives in this State. Shame on the Environmental Rules Board!

ADVERTISEMENT