ILNews

Opinions Feb. 21, 2012

February 21, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Herbert Yanez v. State of Indiana
49A02-1104-CR-362
Criminal. Reverses conviction of possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor and remands for further proceedings. There was no evidence presented as to why Yanez was stopped and the evidence presented didn’t establish the reasonableness of the state’s actions. Judge Barnes concurs in result in a separate opinion.

State of Indiana v. Christopher Vickers
88A05-1106-PC-317
Post conviction. Reverses grant of post-conviction relief to Vickers. The court erred by concluding that Vickers had not knowingly waived his right to counsel.

Paul K. Ogden v. Stephen Robertson, et al.
49A05-1101-CT-45
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of defendants Robertson, et al., with respect to Ogden’s wrongful termination claim. The trial court did not err in finding that the Indiana Department of Insurance defendants did not violate Ogden’s rights under Article I, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution, that Ogden did not derive due process rights from Executive Order 05-14, and Ogden improperly failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

In Re: Indiana Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a The Indianapolis Star, Jeffrey M. Miller & Cynthia S. Miller v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, Inc.; Jennifer Burk; et al.
49A02-1103-PL-234
Civil plenary. Remands to trial court to apply modified Dendrite test to determine if the Indianapolis Star must provide information to Jeffrey Miller that would identify an anonymous online commenter.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.C. and K.M., Jr.; J.C. (Mother), B.D.T. (Father of K.C.) and K.M., Sr. (Father of K.M., Jr.) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
20A03-1107-JT-314
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Charles Duncan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A03-1110-CR-446
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony child molesting.

John Q. Lloyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1105-CR-270
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

Michael Lee Larry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1106-CR-549
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Tony V. Hawkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
56A05-1110-PC-524
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Willie Joseph v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-570
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Dixie Diana Schulz and Joseph Schulz v. The Kroger Co., Kroger Limited Partnership I, Seven-Up American Bottling Co., The American Bottling Co., Dr. Pepper/Seven-Up Inc., et al. (NFP)
32A05-1107-CT-368
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Kroger and other defendants with respect to Kroger’s knowledge about the existence of hazardous conditions in its store.

Jay Wallace v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1107-CR-645
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class D felony theft.

Fayazz Chowdhry v. Estate of Mustansar L. Chaudhry (NFP)
46A05-1103-EU-118
Estate, unsupervised. Affirms grant of the motion to dismiss filed by the representatives of the estate of Mustansar Chaudhry.

Trina Stover Thorstenson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
42A01-1106-CR-287
Criminal. Affirms partial denial of motion for credit time following revocation of probation.
 

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. 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."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT