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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT