ILNews

Opinions Feb. 11, 2013

February 11, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Gray v. State of Indiana
49A02-1205-CR-352
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence of Class D felony possession of cocaine, holding that the court erred in failing to allow a defendant to play a tape of an officer’s deposition that contained inconsistent statements, but that the error was harmless because other evidence at trial strongly pointed to Gray’s guilt.

Edwin Jones v. State of Indiana
49A02-1204-CR-292
Criminal. Affirms Class A misdemeanor conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, holding that Jones’ Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause were not violated because the court allowed a state trooper to testify about a certification of a breath-test machine rather than the signer of the certification.

AT&T v. Atlas Excavating, Inc. (NFP)
79A02-1207-PL-552
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s denial of AT&T’s motion for summary judgment and remands the matter to the lower court with instructions to vacate its judgment in favor of Atlas, enter a summary judgment in favor of AT&T, and conduct proceedings to determine damages.

Tammy Syers v. JKL Construction & Home Maintenance (NFP)
82A05-1205-CC-276
Civil collection. Affirms trial court’s judgment in favor of JKL Construction & Home Maintenance. Concludes JKL’s mechanic’s lien was timely filed and that the lien is not void because of an overstatement in amount.

Thomas Oakley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1204-CR-148
Criminal. Affirms five-year sentence following a guilty plea to carrying a handgun without a license, a Class C felony.

Manuel Lloyd Jamersen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1206-CR-257
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Count I child molesting, a Class A felony; and Count II attempted child molesting, a Class A felony. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Jamersen.

Ernestine Waldon, Christine Hampshire, and Vergie Small v. Donna Wilkins, MD, Joshua Williams, and Rodney Barber, and Carl Barber, Jr. (NFP)
18A02-1203-PL-222
Civil plenary. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands with instructions to reinstate Waldon’s replevin claim. Concludes the trial court properly dismissed Waldon’s claims against appellees stemming from the execution of the trial court’s demolition order under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity and immunity arising from the Indiana Tort Claims Act. However, finds the trial court erred when it dismissed Waldon’s replevin claim contained in the amended complaint.  

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to 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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT