ILNews

Opinions Dec. 4, 2012

December 4, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jerry Vanzyll v. State of Indiana
34A02-1111-CR-1050
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands to the trial court convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felonies of possession of meth and possession of chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The court affirmed the drug convictions but ordered the resisting conviction vacated because it held there was insufficient evidence to prove that Vanzyll fled.

Lane Alan Schrader Trust as Trustee under the Trust Agreement dated 16th day of November, 1999, and known as Lane Alan Schrader Self-Declaration of Trust v. Larry Gilbert and Nancy J. Malecki
75A04-1112-PL-676
Civil plenary, rehearing. Affirms prior COA order that affirmed a trial court’s determination that a legal survey was defective, and restated that the trial court has three options: it may accept the original survey, reject the survey and order a new survey by a different surveyor, or order the county surveyor to mark property boundaries according to court findings based on evidence presented to the court, including previous surveys.  

James T. Mitchell v. 10th And The Bypass, LLC, and Elway, Inc.
53A01-1112-PL-593
Civil plenary, rehearing. Affirms prior COA ruling that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it vacated its interlocutory partial summary judgment for Mitchell under Indiana Trial Rule 54(B), concluding that on rehearing Mitchell attempted to adjust and supplement his original argument, which he cannot do.

Brian A. McKinney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A05-1203-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felonies robbery and escape and Class D felony residential entry.

B.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-JV-421
Juvenile/criminal. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for committing acts that would constitute residential entry as a class D felony and criminal mischief as a class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

Robert E. Eastwood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
07A04-1202-CR-64
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting, Class C felony child molesting and Class D felony fondling in the presence of a minor.

Richard Eric Johnson v. Gillian Wheeler Johnson (NFP)
49A05-1202-DR-81
Domestic relations. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands to the trial court with instructions to recalculate child support and amend its order accordingly.

S.J. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-JV-147
Juvenile. Affirms commitment of S.J. as a ward of the Department of Correction following true findings for burglary and theft.
 

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