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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT