ILNews

Opinions Feb. 28, 2014

February 28, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mary L. Anderson v. Wayne Post 64, American Legion Corp.
49A05-1309-CT-442
Civil tort. Affirms order setting aside its default judgment against Wayne Post 64, American Legion Corp. Anderson failed to serve the American Legion in a manner authorized by the Indiana Trial Rules.

Kenneth Seales v. State of Indiana
71A03-1306-CR-218
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to remove Seales from the sex offender registry and his motion to correct error. The additional registration requirements imposed on him after a 2006 change in the law do not amount to an impermissible ex post facto law.

Eddie Hughes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1307-CR-334
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Terry Lee Duckworth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1307-CR-582
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony sexual battery.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Q.L. and M.L., M.F., Jr., and N.L. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1308-JT-344
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Debra Sue Miles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1304-CR-179
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Joy Elaine Gwinn v. Harry J. Kloeppel & Associates, Inc (NFP)
33A04-1306-CT-307
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Harry J. Kloeppel & Associates on Gwinn’s claim for negligence.

Mario Sims, Sr., and Tiffiny Sims, et al. v. The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate Holders CWABS, Inc., et al. (NFP)
71A03-1305-MF-261
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the bank on its complaint to foreclose on its mortgage.

Scott Logan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1304-CR-192
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molestation.

D.K. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A02-1308-JV-734
Juvenile. Affirms finding that D.K. committed what would be Class A misdemeanor battery if committed by an adult.

Alonzo Golston Williams III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1307-CR-624
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

David Ball v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1308-CR-416
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.

Joshua Basey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1303-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony aggravated battery and Class C felony criminal confinement in bodily injury.

James A. Lynn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
70A04-1307-CR-317
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Deion Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1307-CR-340
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Stewart Gase v. State of Indiana (NFP)
01A02-1306-PC-530
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Leon Rice, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Roger Anderson (NFP)
93A02-1306-EX-477
Agency action. Affirms determination that Anderson is eligible for unemployment benefits.

Johnny Leon Burchett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1303-CR-97
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for continuance and request to withdraw guilty plea.  

Christopher M. Galvan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1308-CR-387
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting.

In the Matter of the Adoption of O.R.: N.R. v. K.G. and C.G. (NFP)
21A01-1307-AD-322
Adoption. Dismisses appeal of order granting petition of C.G. and K.G. to adopt O.R. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted 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