ILNews

Opinions Aug. 27, 2010

August 27, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Brian S. Adcock v. State of Indiana
47A01-0912-CR-591
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor, and finding that Adcock is a repeat sexual offender. The trial court didn’t err in permitting the prosecutor to analogize the standard of proof to a jigsaw puzzle during voir dire or in allowing the state to amend the repeat sexual offender notice.

Victor C. Regalado v. Estate of Joseph Regalado and Paula Heffelfinger
64A05-0911-CV-672
Civil. Reverses trial court grant of summary judgment that Heffelfinger is Joseph Regalado’s half-sister. Holds that a child must show she is a child born out of wedlock before I.C. Section 29-1-2-7 is applicable and that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Paula is a child born out of wedlock. Also holds that Joseph’s father’s acknowledgment of Paula as his biological daughter in the Agreed Order of Annulment does not preclude Joseph’s father or any other heir from challenging his paternity of Paula. Remands for further proceedings.

Michael Butler v. State of Indiana
49A02-0904-CV-343
Civil. Reverses denial of Butler’s pro se motions to set aside default judgment against him for operating a truck in a restricted lane on a highway consisting of at least three lanes, and for speeding, both as civil infractions. Butler engaged in no “foot dragging” or other behavior seeking to delay the process and attempted to immediately address the effects of his absence from the March 16 hearing. Procedural issues also interfered with his ability to obtain a hearing. Remands with instructions to set a new trial date.

B.F. v. Review Board, and Whirlpool Corp. (NFP)
93A02-1004-EX-379
Civil. Affirms denial of unemployment insurance benefits.

Katina Starks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1001-CR-27
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Shawn Davis b/n/f Misty Davis v. Animal Control-City of Evansville, Evansville Housing Authority, et al. (NFP)
82A01-0911-CV-527
Civil. Reverses summary judgment for the city defendants in Davis’ action following injuries he received from a dog bite. Remands for further proceedings.

Ronald C. Hedges v. Weyerbacher Farms (NFP)
87A05-1003-PL-275
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Weyerbacher Farms in Hedges’ lawsuit for breach of pasture lease, and declaratory judgment abating rent payments and extending the term of the lease.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.B., et al.; M.R. v. Marion County DCS and Child Advocates (NFP)
49A02-1002-JT-109
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Steve Ballard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-CR-63
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of murder and 110-year sentence.

Danitra White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-CR-1150
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies domestic battery and two counts of battery.

Dustin J. Baumbarger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-0912-CR-675
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Thomas A. Hopkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1002-CR-125
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in in-home detention and execution of part of Hopkins’ previously suspended sentence.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT