ILNews

Opinions, Aug. 3, 2011

August 3, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
T.W. v. Review Board
93A02-1011-EX-1223
Agency action. Reverses finding that T.W. was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits as a result of his failure to disclose self-employment. There is no statutory or evidentiary basis for a finding that T.W.’s failure to disclose his relationship with Professional Labor Services would disqualify him from receiving benefits, reduce his benefits, or render him ineligible for benefits or extended benefits. Remands for further proceedings.

Martin Roy Emerson v. State of Indiana
07A01-1009-CR-486
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class C felony operating a vehicle while driving privileges are forfeited for life. The prosecutor’s questions regarding bullying during voir dire and suggestions during opening and closing arguments that Emerson was a bully did not amount to a fundamental error. Affirms in all other respects. Senior Judge Barteau dissents in part.

Brian D. Hayes v. Westminster Village North, Inc.
49A02-1010-CT-1141
Civil. Reverses summary judgment for Westminster Village North in Hayes’ survivor action for negligence caused by medical malpractice and claim for wrongful death. There is a dispute of fact as to whether Dorothy Rodarmel was mentally incompetent and therefore under a legal disability and Indiana’s Journey’s Account Statute applies. Remands for further proceedings.

Dustin L. Coleman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A02-1012-CR-1397
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony neglect of a dependent.

John G. Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1011-CR-574
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in a schedule II controlled substance.

David W. Glasgow v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1012-CR-817
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Thaddeus Rodriguez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A05-1002-CR-69
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Larry D. Nash-Aleman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-CR-1183
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony strangulation, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, and Class A misdemeanor interfering with the reporting of a crime.

Michael E. Hurst v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1010-CR-622
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony criminal recklessness.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.S., et al.; A.S. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
02A03-1012-JT-657
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT