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

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