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. 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