ILNews

Opinions Dec. 28, 2010

December 28, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Monday:

Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of Jane G. Cotton
48S00-0910-DI-497
Discipline. Suspends Cotton for 30 days without automatic reinstatement for engaging in attorney misconduct in an improper ex parte communication with a judge and by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Justice Sullivan dissents, arguing for at least a 90-day suspension.

Indiana Tax Court
Lake County Assessor, North Township Assessor, et al. v. Amoco Sulfur Recovery Corp., and BP Products North America, Inc. (NFP)
49T10-1010-TA-55
Tax. Denies Amoco and BP’s motion to dismiss.

Today’s opinions

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Richard Childress Jr. v. State of Indiana
45A03-0911-CR-520
Criminal. Affirms convictions of robbery and criminal confinement, both Class B felonies. On appeal, appellant-defendant raised the sole issue of whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence the state did not disclose until the second day of trial. Court of Appeals concluded the state’s late disclosure did not impair his right to a fair trial.

Warren L. Williams, et al. v. David Orentlicher, et al., as Trustees of the Indiana State Teachers Association Insurance Trust
49A02-1003-PL-249
Civil. Affirms trial court’s denial of Warren L. Williams and Robert Frankel’s motion to compel arbitration. Williams and Frankel are former employees of the ISTA. They also acted as fiduciaries with the ISTA Insurance Trust, an entity legally separate and distinct from the ISTA. At issue was whether the Trust was bound by the arbitration provisions of Williams’ and Frankel’s employment agreements with the ISTA.

Cynthia Ann Painter v. Lee Andrew Granderson (NFP)
65A04-1003-DR-203
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order that awarded custody of the parties’ minor daughter, R.K., to appellee-respondent father.

Natasha R. Lafave v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A01-1006-CR-271
Criminal. Reverses and remands conviction of illegal possession of alcoholic beverages for consumption, a Class C misdemeanor.

Carla Tabor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-358
Criminal. Affirms conviction of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud or deceit, a Class D felony; reverses and remands conviction of possession of a controlled substance, a Class D felony.

Richard Huffman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-CR-1057
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief related to an educational credit against the release date.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of A.P., et al.; K.G. and T.G. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
23A04-1004-JT-334
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s judgment terminating K.G. and T.G’s parental rights to their children.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT