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. 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