ILNews

Opinions Feb. 21, 2011

February 21, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joshua Burke v. State of Indiana
49A02-1006-CR-660
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary. Indiana Code Section 35-43-2-1(1)(B)(ii), which enhances burglary from a Class C felony to Class B felony if the building or structure burgled is used for religious worship, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or Article 1, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution.

Sheree Demming v. Cheryl Underwood and Kenneth Kinney
53A01-1005-PL-252
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for Underwood and Kinney on Demming’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud, as well as her request for the imposition of a constructive trust. The designated evidentiary materials create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Demming exercised sufficient control over Underwood’s activities to support the existence of an agency relationship and whether Underwood breached a common law fiduciary duty owed to Demming. Remands for further proceedings.

Jammy Daniels v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1006-PC-359
Post conviction. Reverses decision to decline to vacate Daniels’ habitual-offender sentencing enhancements. Remands for re-sentencing.

Donald Baker III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-349
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanors battery and trespass.

Jimmy Vance v. Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (NFP)
31A04-1007-CC-501
Civil collections. Affirms judgment ordering Vance to pay Caesars Entertainment $75,000, money advanced to him from his established line of credit to gamble at the casino.

Joe E. Smitson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1004-CR-248
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanors operating a vehicle while intoxicated and operating a vehicle with a BAC of 0.08 or greater, which were later enhanced to Class D felonies after Smitson pleaded guilty to felony enhancements after he was convicted.

Kenneth Bradley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1009-CR-595
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and execution of remainder of suspended sentence.

Juan Stallworth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1007-CR-401
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies battery and intimidation and Class A misdemeanors criminal recklessness and driving while suspended.

Rick Delon v. Timothy Rallings, et al. (NFP)
34A04-1006-PL-355
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of the Rallings on their complaint for breach of contract in the sale of residential real estate.

Eric Welch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1007-CR-893
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 71-year sentence for four counts of Class A child molesting, three counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor, and Class A misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of T.G.; P.D.G. v. IDCS, Vanderburgh County Office (NFP)
82A05-1007-JT-465
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Paternity of W.H.; S.S. v. D.L.H. (NFP)
35A02-1008-JP-987
Juvenile. Dismisses appeal by S.S. of trial court’s finding that there exists a preset order for college expenses for his child and the mother has the right to file for amendment of that order.

Adoption of T.L.; D.F., K.F. v. M.J. (NFP)
49A04-1005-AD-310
Adoption. Affirms denial of D.F. and K.F.’s cross-petition for adoption of T.L. and grant of the petition for adoption filed by T.L.’s half brother.

Duane Walters v. Home Bank, S.B., et al. (NFP)
55A01-1005-MF-193
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses judgment of foreclosure and remands for further proceedings. Affirms the partial summary judgment upon the note borrowing money from Home Bank.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.J. and H.J.; H.A. v. IDCS (NFP)
64A03-1007-JT-358
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Scott Malott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A04-1006-CR-356
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for murder and Class B felony confinement.

Randall Spears v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-726
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT