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.














With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.
In regards to bill's comment about trusting the cover meant. We can trust them about as much as we can trust attorneys'.
This is disturbing to learn...