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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT