ILNews

Opinions Feb. 14, 2014

February 14, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Teaching Our Posterity Success, Inc. v. Indiana Department of Education and Indiana State Board of Education
49A05-1308-PL-386
Civil plenary. Reverses dismissal of Teaching Our Posterity Success’ petition for judicial review challenging a decision by the Department of Education and State Board of Education to remove TOPS from its list of approved supplemental educational services providers. Remands to the DOE for the entry of statutorily mandated findings and conclusions to accompany its final order regarding TOPS.

Michael D. English v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1306-CR-322
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony trespass and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Joseph Curnutt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1304-CR-173
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class B felony battery, Class D felony battery and admission to habitual offender status.

Baldev R. Saini v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Integrity Staffing Solutions I (NFP)
93A02-1308-EX-723
Agency action. Affirms decision that Saini is ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Donald W. Esco v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1304-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress.

Andrew Wallace v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1306-CR-304
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony domestic battery, two counts of Class D felony battery on a child with injury, and status as a habitual offender, but reverses the sentence as it violates I.C. 35-50-1-2(c). Remands for resentencing consistent with the opinion.

David Lewicki v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1305-CR-426
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony robbery, Class B felony criminal confinement, Class C felony battery and for being a habitual offender.

Thomas W. Demeester v. Rebecca Demeester (NFP)
71A05-1305-DR-228
Domestic relation. Affirms determination husband dissipated marital assets so as to justify a deviation from the presumptive equal division of marital property. Reverses portion of the order requiring husband to pay 93 percent of the child’s primary and educational expenses and remands with instructions to reconsider the parties’ responsibilities for the educational expenses or to clarify the basis for its decision in that regard.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT