ILNews

Opinions Dec. 16, 2010

December 16, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
William Hurst v. State of Indiana
49A02-1004-CR-378
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained upon the execution of a search warrant. To the extent the trial court concluded that Eric Thomas was inherently credible simply because he was a cooperating citizen informant, the trial court erred. A texted photo to Thomas corroborated the hearsay and there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause.

Anne W. Murphy, et al. v. Paul Terrell, et al.
49A04-1003-PL-198
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Terrell and the class on their suit for injunctive relief against the state. Unsuccessful applicants for Medicaid disability benefits do not have a constitutional right to an in-person administrative hearing. Remands for summary judgment in favor of the state.

St. Mary Medical Center v. Marsha Bakewell
45A03-1004-CT-227
Civil tort. Affirms grant of Bakewell’s motion to correct error. Bakewell’s allegation may proceed under a premises liability theory, even though originally she also pursued as a medical malpractice claim.

Lightpoint Impressions, LLC v. Metropolitan Dev. Comm. of Marion County
49A02-1004-MI-435
Miscellaneous. Affirms that the Metropolitan Development Commission may hear appeals of decisions of the Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals. Reverses grant of the MDC’s motion for summary judgment because it’s not clear whether the MDC had issued a final decision in the matter before Lightpoint appealed.

City of Kokomo, et al. v. Florence Pogue, et al.
34A02-1003-MI-356
Miscellaneous. Reverses denial of Kokomo’s motion to dismiss a remonstrance petition filed by a group of landowners whose land Kokomo wants to annex. The trial court erred in finding certain waivers of the right to remonstrate in exchange for connecting to the sewer system to be ineffective. Excluding those people’s signatures on the remonstrance petition causes the percentage of valid landowner signatures to fall below the statutorily-mandated minimum 65 percent.

R.D. v. Review Board
93A02-1005-EX-559
Civil. Reverses denial of R.D.’s application to attend the Art Institute for retraining because of the cost difference between that school and Ivy Tech. There is no substantial evidence supporting the review board’s denial. R.D.s’ request satisfies the “reasonable cost” requirement of 20 C.F.R. section 617.22(a)(6) and is consistent with the purpose of the Trade Act of 1974. Remands for further proceedings. Chief Judge Baker dissents.

Joseph Prewitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A05-1004-CR-314
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft. Remands with instructions to award the proper amount of credit time and to correct clerical errors.

Carlos Morales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-599
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony sexual battery and reverses conviction of Class D felony criminal confinement. Remands with instructions to vacate the criminal confinement conviction.

Byron Dixon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1005-CR-314
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony carjacking.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.R.; C.P.R. v. IDCS and Guardian Ad Litem program (NFP)
47A04-1007-JT-458
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Joseph Prewitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A01-1004-CR-238
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges are suspended.

Terrence L. Oliver v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-0912-CR-564
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT