ILNews

Opinions Aug. 3, 2010

August 3, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

F.B. Boushehry v. City of Indianapolis, et al.
49A05-1002-PL-55
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in the city’s favor because Boushehry’s claim did not meet the Indiana Tort Claims Act notice requirement.

Ron Droscha v. Scott Shepherd and Fort Wayne Area Association of Realtors
52A02-1001-PL-26
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of Shepherd and the association’s motions to dismiss Droscha’s petition to vacate an arbitration award.

James Chenoweth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-0912-CR-566
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting.

John W. Sawyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1001-CR-129
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Yul Anderson and Rachel Anderson v. Ronald E. Weldy (NFP)
30A01-0906-CV-271
Civil. Remands for the trial court to make a determination on Weldy’s claim of fraud and for contractual attorney fees and costs under the lease agreement. Rules the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in Weldy’s favor regarding his breach-of-contract claim, and that the court correctly dismissed the Andersons’ counterclaims of tortuous interference with a business relationship and slander.

Ashley Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1001-CR-7
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated in two separate causes, and affirms violation of probation in another cause.

Janell Peery v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
72A01-0910-CV-497
Civil. Affirms dismissal of petition for judicial review of Indiana Department of Child Services’ decision affirming substantiated findings of child abuse and neglect.

William G. McLaughlin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1002-CR-260
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for permission to file a belated notice of appeal.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions by 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