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

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT