ILNews

Opinions Feb. 28, 2012

February 28, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Jacob Key, Ted J. Brown and Sally A. Brown v. Dewayne Hamilton
48A02-1007-CT-812
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Hamilton, holding that Key – by waving into traffic a driver who caused a crash with Hamilton – assumed a duty of care to a third-party motorist because the signaled driver reasonably expected that traffic was clear.

Gary Hazelwood v. Melissa Hazelwood n/k/a Melissa Butler (NFP)
03A04-1109-DR-493
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s denial of father’s petition to establish parenting time.

Xavier Morton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-CR-711
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Antwan Rush v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1106-CR-295
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine and one count of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Rafael Del Rio v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1106-CR-285
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

James E. Lonaker v. Cambridge Investment, Inc., Dolgencorp Inc., d/b/a Dollar General Stores, Dean Foods Company, d/b/a Louis Trauth Dairy, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1107-CT-659
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s decision to renew appellee’s motions for summary judgment, holding genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the defendants owed a duty to Lonaker and whether they proximately caused his injuries.

Miranda Herbert v. Steven Herbert (NFP)
16A01-1109-DR-418
Domestic relation. Affirms the court’s order granting father’s request to prevent the relocation of his children.

J.F. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1108-JV-422
Juvenile. Affirms juvenile court’s admission as evidence contraband seized from J.F.’s pocket.

Jessica Deaton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1110-CR-536
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony neglect of a dependent.

Dwayne K. Allen v. State of Indiana (NFP)

34A02-1101-PC-52
Post conviction. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based on counsel’s failure to challenge the trial court’s denial of Allen’s request for a competency evaluation and challenging the post-conviction court’s decision not to hold a new sentencing hearing.

Michael D. Thorning v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-1109-CR-453
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony counterfeiting.
 

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