ILNews

Opinions April 3, 2013

April 3, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Albert Lee Baker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1210-CR-490
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in a narcotic drug.

John W. Taylor, IV v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1208-CR-365
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of attempted murder, all as Class A felonies.

Benjamin A. Hankins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1207-CR-611
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for murder.

Jason R. Derry, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1208-CR-354
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to re-sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony possession of cocaine.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of E.B., minor child, and T.S., biological father; T.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
49A05-1208-JT-414
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Christopher Snyder v. Classic Restaurant Services, LLC (NFP)
29A02-1207-CT-592
Civil tort. Affirms grant of a preliminary injunction against Snyder.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT