ILNews

Opinions April 8, 2011

April 8, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Samuel D. Raisor, et al. v. Edward O. Carter, et al.
49A05-1010-CT-629
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Jimmie’s Raceway Pub, in which the trial court found the Raisors’ action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions and the amended complaint couldn’t relate back to the original filing date because Jimmie’s received notice of the action after the expiration of the 120-day period allowed under Ind. Trial Rule 15(C). Jimmie’s wasn’t prejudiced as the owner learned of the suit within the two-year statute of limitations. Assuming the requirements of T.R. 15(C) are otherwise met, the 120-day limit will be applied only to enlarge the applicable statute of limitations.

Gerald W. Sandefur v. State of Indiana
71A05-1009-CR-605
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy and Class D felony battery and remands with instructions to vacate the conviction and sentence for Class A misdemeanor battery. The arresting officer’s testimony fit the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict Sandefur of battery, but he can’t be convicted of both the misdemeanor and felony on double jeopardy grounds.

Dana Birdin v. Barbara Blakemore (NFP)
49A02-1007-EU-833
Estate unsupervised. Affirms judgment against Birdin in the amount of $9,450 on a conversion claim and more than $75,000 on a replevin claim and order that Birdin pay Blakemore’s attorney fees.

Mark Gregory v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1009-CR-984
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Gregory serve his remaining term of approximately 65 years in prison.

Joseph Dixon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1008-CR-488
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to three counts of Class B felony burglary and one count of Class C felony burglary.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT