7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.
Indiana Court of Appeals
In
the Matter of V.C., Child Alleged to be in Need of Services v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services
79A02-1112-JC-1172
Juvenile. Affirms determination that V.C. is a child in need of services. The juvenile court did not erroneously deny father’s
request to issue a subpoena to the maternal aunt. Father also failed to demonstrate good cause for granting his request for
a continuance, so the juvenile court acted within its discretion in denying his request.
Derek
Lee Morris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1106-PC-379
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
James J. Hambrock, Individually and as Co-Personal Representative
of the Estate of Bob Cromer v. Star Wealth Management, as Co-Personal Representative of the Estate of Bob Cromer (NFP)
49A04-1109-ES-532
Estate, supervised. Affirms probate court’s order denying Hambrock’s claim for equitable relief in the form of
an equitable lien against real estate or a constructive trust imposed to reform a deed.
Lisa
J. Kane v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A04-1109-CR-488
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony receiving stolen property.
ILNews
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!