ILNews

Opinions Feb. 28, 2011

February 28, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David E. Schalk v. State of Indiana
53A01-1005-CR-210
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor attempted possession of marijuana. Schalk arranged a drug buy to try to discredit a witness against his client. An attorney is not exempt from criminal law even if his only purpose is the defense of his client.

Tommie L. Dye v. State of Indiana
49A02-1007-CR-741
Criminal. Reverses conviction of failure to register as a sex offender as a Class C felony. Given the fact that Dye is illiterate, was not assisted when registering, and complied with Indiana Code Section 11-8-8-12(c) by appearing in person every seven days, the evidence is insufficient to convict him of failing to register as a sex offender.

Derrick Smith v. State of Indiana
79A04-1003-CR-139
Criminal. Vacates convictions of conspiracy to commit dealing in cocaine and dealing in cocaine, which were merged. Smith did not waive his right to be tried within 70 days and the trial court erred by not dismissing the charges.

B & B, LLC v. Lake Erie Land Company
45A04-1002-PL-183
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s grant of Lake Erie’s motion for judgment on the evidence and remands for further proceedings. The trial court erred in determining that B&B’s action was barred by the common enemy doctrine and that its claims against Lake Erie should have been permitted to proceed.

Hannah Lakes v. Grange Mutual Casualty Company
89A05-1009-CT-549
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Grange Mutual. Finds Lakes is entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under her sister’s policy and that $44,900 is available to her under Grange Mutual’s coverage.

Jezrael Vaughn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
58A05-1007-CR-469
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in a controlled substance.

Terrence T. Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1009-CR-1014
Criminal. Affirms denial of request to withdraw guilty plea to Class B felony armed robbery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.S.; T.S. & R.D. v. IDCS (NFP)
27A02-1007-JT-816
Juvenile. Dismisses cause with prejudice because the parents failed to timely file a notice of appeal.

M.A.-G. v. J.G. (NFP)
30A05-1002-DR-230
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of M.A.-G.’s motion to relocate.

Eric Markwith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1007-CR-756
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections.

Rebecca Zoborosky v. Brian Zoborosky (NFP)
46A04-1010-DR-702
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution decree that divided the marital assets.

Khaleeq Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1007-CR-415
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Barry Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A04-1006-CR-374
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Tyrone L. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-PC-687
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

D.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-JV-540
Juvenile. Affirms the true finding that D.H. committed Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult.

Constance Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1007-CR-409
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Phillips serve part of the suspended portions of her sentences.

Merritt A. Salyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1006-CR-419
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony resisting law enforcement, and Class A misdemeanors resisting law enforcement and operating a vehicle on a highway while license is suspended or revoked.

The Paternity of M.C.; A.H. . Mi.C. (NFP)
30A01-1005-JP-256
Criminal. Affirms order awarding physical custody of daughter to Mi.C.

Gregory Jacob v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1004-CR-584
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, Class C felony intimidation, Class C felony sexual battery, and Class B felony criminal confinement. Reverses sentence and remands with instructions for the trial court to issue an order and make any other docket entries necessary to revise Jacob’s sentence for criminal confinement, as a Class B felony, to 16 years.

Gregory Sausaman v. Jennifer Hutchens (NFP)
43A03-1008-DR-421
Domestic relation. Reverses order granting Hutchens’ motion for judgment on the evidence on Sausaman’s motion for a change of custody. Remands for further proceedings.

Eric Daniels v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-513
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Angela L. Bauer v. David B. Bauer (NFP)
22A05-1003-DR-191
Domestic relation. Affirms order denying Angela’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B).

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


The Indiana Supreme Court granted 4 transfers and denied 25 for the week ending Feb. 25.
 

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