ILNews

Opinions April 9, 2014

April 9, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In re the Order for the Payment of Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses, State of Indiana v. Jeffrey Cook
48A02-1307-MI-615
Miscellaneous. Affirms order the state should pay Pendleton Correctional Facility inmate Jeffrey Cook’s appellate counsel $5,232.35 in attorney fees and expenses. I.C. 33-37-2-4, which recognizes the financial burden placed on counties containing state correctional facilities, and shifts the burden to the state to pay both trial and appellate costs.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Company a/s/o Kenneth Burkhart v. H.H. Niswander
35A02-1307-CT-638
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of complaint of negligence against H.H. Niswander and award of attorney fees to the car dealership. There was no evidence in the cause-and-origin report that H.H. Niswander was negligent or that the oil change performed by H.H. Niswander caused the car fire. There was no evidence supporting State Farm’s allegations that H.H. Niswander was negligent or caused the fire. Despite this lack of evidence, State Farm pursued the case.

K.L. v. E.H.
29A02-1308-MI-681
Miscellaneous. Affirms order granting the petition for visitation filed by E.H., the paternal grandfather of K.L.’s child. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony Mother wished to elicit from a mediator regarding visitation. The trial court acknowledged the limited contact mother had with E.H.’s family, the grandfather’s experience caring for and raising children, and that there was no evidence L.L. would be unsafe in his care. Judge Robb concurs in part and dissents in part.

Abelardo Perez-Romero v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1307-CR-290
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Matthew McKinney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1309-CR-399
Criminal. Affirms 30-year aggregate sentence following guilty plea to two counts of dealing in a schedule II controlled substance, one as a Class A felony and one as a Class B felony; and Class C felony dealing in marijuana.

Roger T. Fox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A02-1307-IF-608
Infraction. Affirms citation for failing to wear a seatbelt under I.C. 9-19-10-2.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: G.G. (Minor Child), And A.S. (Mother) & G.G., Jr. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
18A05-1308-JT-418
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Risha Warren v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Springs Valley Community School Corp. (NFP)
93A02-1311-EX-949
Agency action. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

Antione Marshall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A05-1308-CR-425
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Marshall serve his previously suspended sentence.

Zar Dyson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1302-CR-135
Criminal. Affirms that the trial court properly denied Dyson’s motion to strike an amended charging information and acted within its discretion in refusing to give his tendered jury instruction that defined “recklessly.” Concludes that the evidence was sufficient to support Dyson’s convictions for intimidation and pointing a firearm. The conviction and sentence for the lesser offense—pointing a firearm—must be set aside on double jeopardy grounds because there was a reasonable possibility that the jury used the exact same evidence to convict Dyson of both offenses. Affirms 20-year aggregate sentence, except for the erroneous sentence imposed for pointing a firearm. Judge Crone concurs in part and dissents in part.

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT