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. 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