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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT