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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT