ILNews

Opinions Aug. 11, 2011

August 11, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Westville Correctional Facility, et al. v. George Finney
49A05-1103-PL-92
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of Finney’s verified petition for judicial review. Westville has not shown that the reviewing court committed reversible error. It is clear from the record that the agency’s action was without evidentiary foundation, let alone substantial evidence as required by Ind. Code 4-21.5-5-14(d)(5).

Shepherd Properties Co. v. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 91
49A04-1010-PL-676
Civil plenary. Grants rehearing for the limited purpose of expanding upon the discussion of the issue presented on appeal concerning the propriety of an award of attorney fees under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act. The appellate court doesn’t disagree with the union’s contention, or prior observations from the court, that APRA does not include language explicitly precluding attorney fees from a third party. Conversely, APRA does not include language providing for payment of attorney fees by an intervenor, and the judges declined to write into the statute such a provision.

Karl Driver v. State of Indiana
71A05-1012-PC-795
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Driver’s verified motion to vacate judgment. Driver gained actual knowledge of the judgment when the trial court sent him a copy Sept. 7, 2010, but he did not file his motion until Oct. 29, 2010, which was outside the 30-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal.

Bradley A. Hole v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1012-CR-680
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for pre-trial jail credit time.

James Clint Lawson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

31A01-1012-CR-627
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Class D felony strangulation, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, and Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

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