ILNews

Opinions Feb. 21, 2014

February 21, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of: TLC, a Child Alleged to be a Delinquent Child v. State of Indiana
60A01-1308-JV-377
Juvenile. Affirms commitment of TLC to the Indiana Department of Correction. Finds TLC did not receive unequal treatment and his due process rights were not violated. Rules that the juvenile court had an adequate factual basis to conclude that TLC was guilty of what would be the crime of resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. Concludes the state sufficiently proved that TLC committed what would have been battery, a Class B misdemeanor, had it been committed by an adult.  

In the Matter of: S.G. and M.H. (Minor Children), Children Alleged to be Children in Need of Services, and P.G. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1307-JC-612
Juvenile. Affirms the judgment of the juvenile court. Finds the evidence was sufficient to support the Children in Need of Services adjudication.

Tommy Dawson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-584
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery resulting in bodily injury, a Class A misdemeanor.

Timothy W. Woolum, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1306-CR-560
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of Woolum’s probation and order that he serve the remainder of his suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Ronrico J. Hatch v. Kathleen Brita (NFP)
02A05-1307-SC-374
Small claim. Affirms dismissal on grounds that the limitation period had passed.

Don Rudd v. Adam Compton (NFP)
29A04-1306-PL-294
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Rudd’s motion to correct error. Finds the trial court did not err in ordering Rudd to compensate Adam Compton for $24,684.29 in damages to his RV.

Patrick M. McVady v. Rebecka R. Pickett-McVady (NFP)
91A02-1308-DR-675
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Patrick McVady’s request to modify his court-ordered life insurance payments and reduce his child support payments.

John C. Oosta v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1307-CR-251
Criminal. Affirms Oosta’s conviction of two counts of child molesting, both Class C felonies, and his aggregate 12-year sentence.

The Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Tax Court released no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals released no Indiana opinions by 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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. 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."

ADVERTISEMENT