ILNews

Opinions Feb. 6, 2013

February 6, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Walter E. Smith, Jr. v. State of Indiana
84A04-1112-CR-637
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to use Smith’s tendered instruction because the substance of that instruction was covered by instructions given by the court nor in refusing to discharge Smith pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B). The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in admitting at trial the cocaine evidence seized pursuant to a valid search warrant.

Pekin Insurance Company v. Jose and Carol Hanquier and Joseph Hall

55A04-1208-CT-401
Civil tort. Reverses Pekin Insurance Co.’s motion to correct error. The trial court erred when it failed to enforce the arbitration provision of the Pekin policy as required by Indiana Code 34-57-2-3(a). Remands with instructions.

James Newman v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Gagan LLC (NFP)
93A02-1206-EX-466
Agency action. Affirms denial of claim for unemployment benefits.

Joshua D. Preston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A04-1206-CR-291
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies neglect of a dependent and battery.

Roman Lawson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1205-CR-235
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.T., and A.M. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
49A05-1206-JT-285
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jason Tye Myers v. Stason L. Wiete, Unknown Party, and W. Lafayette Police Department (NFP)

79A04-1206-CT-323
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for defendants on Myers’ action for malicious prosecution.

Amber D. Courtney v. State of Indiana (NFP)

56A03-1206-CR-282
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony possession of narcotic drug because it occurred within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of C.D., and A.D., minor children, and S.D., the mother: S.D. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, and Lake County C.A.S.A. (NFP)
45A03-1205-JT-242
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Shaun L. Steele v. Correctional Industrial Facility (NFP)
48A04-1207-SC-383
Small claim. Affirms decision to set aside default judgment entered against Correctional Industrial Facility.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.D., J.D., J.D.,L.D., and La.D., (Minor Children), and J.D. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
82A05-1206-JT-388
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jarrell Marcell Ballard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1206-CR-319
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony robbery, Class A felony burglary, Class B felony robbery, Class C felony battery and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Shannon N. Maiden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A04-1206-CR-330
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to dealing in a schedule I controlled substance as a Class A felony because the offense occurred within 1,000 feet of a school.

David Edmonds v. Menards, Inc. (NFP)
93A02-1209-EX-712
Agency action. Affirms Worker’s Compensation Board’s determination that Edmonds suffers a 10 percent permanent partial impairment rating with regard to his spinal injuries, and reverses the board’s determination relating to Edmonds’ right shoulder injury. Remands to the board for a determination of whether Edmonds suffers permanent impairment with respect to his shoulder injury.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT