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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT