ILNews

Opinions Dec. 20, 2011

December 20, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Christopher A. Bryant v. State of Indiana
45A03-1101-CR-11
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for two counts of Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor marijuana possession and Bryant’s admission that he is a habitual substance offender, holding that his extensive arrest record renders harmless any error the trial court may have made.

Commissioner of Labor on the Relation of Stephen R. Shofstall, Edward C. Posey, and Deborah Posey v. Int'l Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, CLC District Council 91
49A02-1103-PL-263
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, which stated Shofstall and the Poseys were not entitled to vacation pay. Holds that union bylaws show vacation pay was in addition to 52 weeks of compensation per year.

Lance McCloud v. State of Indiana
49A05-1102-CR-77
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to dismiss pending charges, holding that the delay in McCloud’s trial date was not excessive and was caused by his own act. Holds that the delay did not result in actual prejudice.

James R. Lockhart, Jr. v. Lisa (Lockhart) Guyer (NFP)
29A02-1103-DR-208
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s determination that quitclaim deed did not disallow wife to 45 percent of net value of property and remands to the trial court to determine wife’s share. Also remands with instructions to vacate order regarding attorney fees and to enter an order requiring the wife to repay husband overpayment of child support.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of H.W. and H.S.; T.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
48A02-1105-JT-470
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

William Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A04-1104-CR-272
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for two counts of Class A felony child molestation.

Gary Joe Harrison v. Bill Wilson (NFP)
46A05-1104-CR-226
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Wilson and holds that the case was not properly before the trial court because Harrison failed to exhaust his administrative remedies through the Indiana State Prison in his efforts to receive educational credit time.

Christopher W. Hovis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A03-1011-CR-613
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony assisting a criminal.

Cherokee Development, Inc. v. Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. (NFP)
49A04-1106-CC-274
Collections. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ohio Farmers Insurance Co. and denies Ohio Farmer’s request for appellate attorney fees.

James A. Mudd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1105-CR-192
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A and Class C felony child molesting.

Andrew M. Royer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1106-PC-325
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In Re: The Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of D.F. & R.F. and B.G. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
84A01-1105-JT-308
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

Thomas L. Kessinger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1105-CR-240
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of sentence, as sentence has already been served.

Derrick D. Jeter, M.D. v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1101-MI-44
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s dismissal of Jeter’s petition for judicial review of an order by the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana revoking his license, holding the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction was not warranted.

S. (M.) O. v. S.M. (NFP)
29A04-1104-DR-203
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s judgment ordering father to continue to provide health insurance for the parties’ children.

Great Hospitality Services, Inc. v. Karl Bauer (NFP)
64A03-1107-CT-295
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to set aside default judgment in favor of Bauer on his personal injury complaint against Great Hospitality.

In Re: The Paternity of P.B.; D.B. v. M.B. (NFP)
03A01-1012-JP-653
Juvenile. On petition from both mother and father for rehearing, the appeals court stated that while it initially denied the father’s request for attorney fees, it now agrees that attorney fees should be assessed against the mother who has acted in procedural bad faith. Affirms original opinion that father’s parenting time was appropriate.

C.C. v. Review Board of the Ind. Dept. of Workforce Development and Employer (NFP)
93A02-1008-EX-1000
Civil. Affirms finding by the Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board that C.C. was terminated for just cause and therefore is not entitled to unemployment benefits.

Indiana Tax Court and Indiana Supreme 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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT