ILNews

Opinions Dec. 10, 2010

December 10, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
Indiana Supreme Court
Jeffrey E. Akard v. State of Indiana
79S02-1009-CR-478
Criminal. Summarily affirms the Indiana Court of Appeals in all respects except as to its conclusion that the trial court’s sentencing decision was inappropriate and required a substantial upward revision to 118 years. Declines to intervene in the trial court’s determination that the appropriate sentence is 93 years. Makes a minor correction to Akard’s sentence on his two Class C felony battery charges and revises his sentence to be an aggregate of 94 years. Remands for re-sentencing.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
David Snowberger v. State of Indiana
09A02-1005-CR-570
Criminal. Reverses revocation of probation. Snowberger’s plea agreement to nonsupport of a dependent child required the state to show his failure to pay child support to be willful and he has the ability to make payments before his probation could be revoked. The evidence was insufficient to support the revocation.  

G.D. v. Review Board
93A02-1007-EX-718
Civil. Reverses denial of G.D.’s motion to reinstate his appeal from an adverse determination of his claim for unemployment benefits. There is nothing in the record to support the director of Unemployment Insurance Appeals’ or the review board’s decisions to deny his motion to reinstate his appeal based upon the lack of showing of good cause. Remands for further proceedings.

Jonathon L. Dillard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1008-CR-427
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony attempted theft.

Carlene L. Henry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1006-CR-326
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Tommie Reives v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-796
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for earned credit time.

Indiana Tax Court had 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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT