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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT