ILNews

Opinions Aug. 6, 2014

August 6, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kevin Davis v. State of Indiana
49A05-1310-CR-523
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony robbery resulting in serious bodily injury. L.H.’s statements to police identifying Davis as participating in the beating and robbery were properly admitted, the trial court did not err when it determined two witnesses had made themselves unavailable and therefore allowed their depositions to be admitted into evidence at trial, and there is sufficient evidence supporting the conviction.

Craig Alvey v. State of Indiana

20A04-1310-MI-533
Miscellaneous. Affirms petition for rehearing of the denial of Alvey’s petition to expunge records of his conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of cocaine. Finds that Alvey does not have to wait three years to file a new petition to expunge his Class A misdemeanor conviction under the new, more liberal standards of I.C. 35-38-8-2 (2014). Affirms in all other respects.

Cherokee Air Products, Inc., Cherokee Family Limited Partnership, Tippmann Industrial Products, Inc., Dennis Tippmann, Sr. Family Partnership, LLP, and Tippmann Farms, LLC v. Bruce E. Buchan
02A05-1312-PL-635
Civil plenary. Affirms on interlocutory appeal the order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Buchan in an action alleging breach of his employment contract and seeking damages. There are no genuine issues of material fact precluding the entry of partial summary judgment on the issue of his entitlement to retire.

Arthur Gutierrez, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1309-CR-365
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

In the Matter of J.K., A Child in Need of Services, M.K., Father v. Marion County Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1312-JC-1008
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication that J.K. is a child in need of services.

Jeffery A. Foster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
14A01-1311-CR-522
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury and imposition of $120 in costs and fees. Remands for hearing to assess Foster’s ability to pay an additional $48 in other fees.

Daniel Utterback v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1312-CR-1021
Criminal. Affirms seven-year sentence for Class C felony child molesting.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court released no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by 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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT