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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT