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. 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