ILNews

Opinions Aug. 6, 2012

August 6, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinons prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Donald Gregory Huls v. State of Indiana

64A04-1110-CR-552
Criminal. Affirms convictions of criminal recklessness, one as a Class D felony and one as a Class C felony. Affirms denial of motion for mistrial because the prosecutor’s isolated comment did not have a probable persuasive effect on the jury and did not place Huls in grave peril. His proposed jury instructions incorrectly stated the law on self-defense or the evidence did not support giving them.  

PNC Bank, National Association, et al. v. LA Development, Inc., Andrew L. Arbuckle, et al., and INTA, LLC v. PNC Bank, National Association, et al.
41A01-1107-MF-314
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses decision in favor of INTA in an action filed by PNC against LA Development, INTA, and two individuals. The subordination agreement is ambiguous, but concludes PNC did not relinquish all of its rights and remedies in the subordination agreement. Because PNC has shown the requisite provisions of Indiana Code 32-30-5-1 have been satisfied and PNC did not relinquish its mandatory right to the appointment of a receiver, the trial court order is erroneous. Remands for further proceedings.

Janet M. Wright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
11A04-1109-CR-506
Criminal. Affirms denial of Wright’s motion to suppress as to the marijuana found beside her house and the trial court’s deferring to rule on all evidence found inside the home and outbuildings due to insufficient evidence to address that matter. Remands for further proceedings.

Brian L. Millard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1201-CR-18
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness.

Preload, Inc. v. Hammond Water Works Department and Jeffrey Porter General Contractors, Inc. (NFP)
45A05-1201-PL-22
Civil plenary. Reverses the trial court order to the extent that the arbitration order says that Preload must be joined as a party in the arbitration between Jeffrey Porter and Hammond Water Works. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Mathias concurs in result.

Paul Edward McMinn v. Lisa Stephanie McMinn (NFP)
20A03-1106-DR-245
Domestic relation. Affirms in part the order which established that child H.McM. should continue his secondary education at a private, parochial high school. Remands for further proceedings.

 

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