ILNews

Opinions Feb. 4, 2013

February 4, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Connie S. Landers v. Wabash Center, Inc.
79A04-1204-CT-191
Civil tort. Affirms judgment for Wabash Center Inc. in its lawsuit against Landers for the return of money her ex-husband stole from his employer Wabash and gave to her during and after their marriage. The court ordered she pay more than $1.037 million and granted Wabash an equitable lien on her home. Wabash’s lawsuit is not barred by the statute of limitations and the ruling is supported by sufficient evidence.

Mohamed Sesay v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-CR-190
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B misdemeanors public intoxication and disorderly conduct.

Brandon Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1207-CR-357
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

Eligah Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1207-CR-528
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of battery and one count of resisting law enforcement, all as Class A misdemeanors.

Chris Corey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1208-CR-342
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

Blaine Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

10A01-1201-CR-15
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not post any Indiana decisions by IL deadline. The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court didn’t post any 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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT