ILNews

Opinions Feb. 26, 2014

February 26, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Robin Harper v. State of Indiana
49A04-1305-CR-222
Criminal. Reverses Harper’s Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement conviction. Officers Gillespie and Hartman unlawfully entered Harper’s residence, therefore, the officers were not engaged in the lawful execution of their duties at the time they arrested Harper and then attempted to remove her wedding ring in preparation for booking.

Chad E. Hucker v. State of Indiana
35A02-1307-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanors operating a vehicle while intoxicated and operating a vehicle with a Schedule I or II controlled substance. Finds Indiana Code 9-30-5-1(c), which proscribes the operation of a vehicle with a Schedule I or II controlled substance, does not violate Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution.

Robert D. Stephens, Ryan Moe, Thomas Theohary, and Law Enforcement Technologies, Inc. v. Brian A. Costa and Amy Costa (NFP)
71A04-1305-CT-242
Civil tort. Affirms judgment personally against Stephens for Brian Costa’s injury. Reverses denial of Theohary’s motion for relief of judgment as the trial court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over him. Remands for further proceedings as to Theohary because he has sufficient minimum contacts with Indiana.

Jacquelyn Webster Green, as personal representative of the estate of Mary A. Webster, deceased v. Housing Authority of the City of Gary, Indiana, et al. (NFP)
45A04-1307-CT-344
Civil tort. Affirms grant of motion to dismiss in favor of the Gary Housing Authority and other defendants.

Rita Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1305-CR-454
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and finding Thompson is a habitual offender.

Dennis Powers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
61A04-1307-CR-356
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: L.C., Minor Child, R.C., Father v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1307-JT-297
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT