ILNews

Opinions Aug. 26, 2010

August 26, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
John M. Stephenson v. Bill Wilson, Superintendent of Indiana State Prison
09-2924
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Civil. Stephenson failed to carry his burden of proving prejudice, even on the premise that his counsel should have objected to the stun belt. The question of prejudice from Stephenson being required to wear the stun belt at the penalty hearing will require further consideration of the District Court on remand.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.G.; Z.G. v. Marion County DCS and Child Advocates Inc.  
49A04-1002-JT-75
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights. Mother’s due process rights weren’t violated, the trial court didn’t commit reversible error in the exclusion of evidence, and DCS presented clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s judgment.

Dean V. Kruse Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Jerry W. Gates
59A01-1001-CT-125
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Gates on the breach-of-contract claims and the denial of the Kruse parties’ cross-motion for summary judgment on Gates’ fraud and conversion claims. Gates failed to complete the sale within a reasonable time due to no fault of the seller so his earnest money deposit is forfeited. Remands for further proceedings to determine the damage award in favor of the Kruse parties and grant summary judgment in favor of them on the issues of breach of contract, fraud, and conversion.

Tony O. Girdler v. State of Indiana
73A01-1001-CR-14
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony auto theft. The state proved all the elements of auto theft against Girdler, even though he was not the original thief of the van.

Anthony E. Frink v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1002-PC-150
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Antonio Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1002-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation ordered following Moore’s guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Pierre E. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-0912-CR-730
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and 175-year aggregate sentence for murder and four counts of Class A felony attempted murder.

Jeremy James Barden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1002-CR-64
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident but remands for correction of sentence.

Michael Pugh v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A05-1002-CR-90
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT