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. 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