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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT