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

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT