ILNews

Opinions Aug. 4, 2011

August 4, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Terrence Williams v. State of Indiana
49A02-1101-CR-9
Criminal. Reverses denial of Williams’ petition that a handgun seized by police be released to his counsel. Williams asked the gun be returned after his carrying a handgun without a license charge was dismissed. Williams’ inability to lawfully possess a handgun, without more, doesn’t prevent the return of the gun to his counsel.  

J.W.B. v. Review Board
93A02-1101-EX-5
Agency appeal. Reverses administrative law judge’s denial of J.W.B.’s motion for a continuance of his unemployment insurance appeal hearing and the judge’s decision to proceed to disposition without his participation. The ALJ abused her discretion by denying the requests for a continuance. Remands with instructions to the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development to grant J.W.B. a hearing upon due notice.

Cynthia Welch v. Shawn D. Young, et al.
79A02-1012-CT-1407
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Shawn Young and remands for further proceedings. There are issues of fact as to whether the injury took place on the field or outside the playing area, and whether the game had started. Affirms dismissing Young to the extent his potential liability was premised on his status as an employee of a governmental entity.

Lisa Fouce v. State of Indiana (NFP)

27A04-1011-CR-695
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class C felony forgery and Class D felony theft.

Robert Holland v. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Co., et al. (NFP)
45A04-1004-PL-324
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of intervenor Richard Loveless in Robert Holland’s quite title lawsuit.

Roy Kelley, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1011-CR-1197
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony aggravated battery.

Timothy & Stephanie Mackall v. Cathedral Trustees, Inc. (NFP)

49A02-1104-CC-281
Civil collections. Affirms the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to enforce its judgment entered in favor of Cathedral for the Mackalls’ breach of contract or non-payment of tuition.

Roy Austin Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
77A05-1011-PL-726
Civil plenary. Affirms partial summary judgment to the Indiana Department of Correction regarding whether he filed a notice with the Indiana attorney general and IDOC within 180 days of his loss as required by the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

Bryan E. Clark v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A01-1011-CR-604
Criminal. Affirms 12-year sentence executed in the Department of Correction.

Betsy Waters v. Indiana State University (NFP)
93A02-1101-EX-78
Agency appeal. Reverses denial of worker’s compensation benefits and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Adoption of X.B.M.; H.P. and A.P. v. K.M. (NFP)
68A05-1012-AD-775
Adoption. Affirms denial of H.P. and A.P.’s petition to adopt their grandson.

Joel T. Martinez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1325
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated in a manner that endangered a person.

Marcus Bailey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1012-CR-761
Criminal.  Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

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