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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT