ILNews

Opinions Dec. 10, 2013

December 10, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
David Didion and Kristi Didion as Parents and Legal Guardians of Brayden Didion v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company
27A02-1303-PL-232
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners Insurance Co. on its complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no liability for a dog bite on an insured’s property. The person living at the property was not an insured and Auto-Owners was not given timely notice of the dog bite and injury pursuant to the terms of the policy.

Robert Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1303-CR-148
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea.

Raymond B. Baker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-1304-CR-163
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony neglect of a dependent.

Dabian Dorion Boyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1304-CR-174
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Sheryl A. Payne v. Thomas L. Payne (NFP)
23A01-1305-DR-204
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of wife’s motion to correct error after her request for spousal maintenance was denied.

Jessica L. Rhye v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1303-CR-248
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture a controlled substance.

Kennith Howard v. Erica Lofton (NFP)
49A05-1302-DR-43
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Howard’s motion to reconsider and set for hearing, and his motion to correct error and relief from judgment from his dissolution proceeding with Lofton.

Aaron Edward Belcher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1305-CR-225
Criminal. Affirms convictions of one count each of Class B felony burglary, Class C felony escape, Class D felonies confinement and possession of a narcotic drug, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and possession of marijuana.

Timothy D. Driscoll, Jr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1303-CR-147
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT