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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT