ILNews

Opinions Aug. 15, 2011

August 15, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
T.W. v. State of Indiana
54A01-1103-JV-125
Juvenile. Affirms order that T.W. must register as a sex offender for 10 years. In the absence of any constitutional constraints, it was entirely the General Assembly’s prerogative to grant Indiana courts the subject matter jurisdiction to enter orders requiring certain juveniles to register as sex offenders. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling T.W.’s objections to the testimony of two court-appointed psychologists.

Jimmy Robinson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1101-CR-57
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

J.B. Whitelow v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1009-CR-586
Criminal. Affirms convictions of felony murder, Class C felony attempted battery, and adjudication as an habitual offender.

The Education Resources Institute v. Douglas L. Krasnoff (NFP)
49A02-1007-CC-899
Civil collections. Reverses dismissal of The Education Resources Institute’s suit against Krasnoff. Remands for a new trial.

Lee Tibbetts v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1010-CR-609
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for four counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class C felony child molesting, and one count of Class D felony vicarious sexual gratification.

Cesar Sanchez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A01-1103-CR-111
Criminal. Reverses sentence for Class C felony operating a vehicle after forfeiture of license for life and Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Remands with instructions to issue a revised sentence as detailed in the opinion. Judge Bradford dissents.

Leonard E. Luna v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1103-CR-114
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

J.F. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A04-1103-JV-149
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be criminal recklessness if committed by an adult.


Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court did not grant or deny transfer to any cases for the week ending Aug. 12.
 

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