ILNews

Opinions April 9, 2012

April 9, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of L.J., and R.J., III; and V.A., and R.J. v. Marion Co. Dept. of Child Services and Child Advocates (NFP)
49A02-1108-JT-804
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights for mother and father.

Justin Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-CR-660
Criminal. Holds that Thomas has not proven that a judge’s inquiry into venue constituted a fundamental error. Remands in part to correct abstract of judgment, holding sentences for both dealing in and possession of marijuana violate double jeopardy standards.

Steven W. Stockwell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1108-CR-392
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order revoking probation, holding Stockwell voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel at a probation violation hearing.

Lonnie Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1109-CR-475
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony robbery.

Mychael Nance v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1108-CR-418
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to suppress evidence, holding that a warrantless search was justified, because police believed Nance’s home had just been or was being burglarized at the time they arrived.

Allen R. Stout, et al. v. Linda Zabona (NFP)
92A03-1105-CT-203
Civil tort. Affirms jury verdict and award of damages in favor of Zabona. Affirms jury’s verdict against Stout and other defendants on breach of contract and fiduciary duty.
 

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