ILNews

Opinions Jan. 18, 2012

January 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
A.T. v. State of Indiana
49S02-1201-JV-26
Juvenile. Reverses trial court’s dispositional order and remands with instructions to vacate that portion of its order committing A.T. to the Department of Correction until his 18th birthday. Because A.T. does not meet the criteria of Indiana Code 31-37-19-9(b), a determinate commitment under that section may not be imposed.

Rickey D. Whitaker v. Travis M. Becker
02S03-1201-CT-27
Civil tort. Affirms dismissal of Whitaker’s personal injury case against Becker following an auto accident. The magistrate judge and trial court judge acted within the range of their discretion in making it clear to counsel that the behavior by Whitaker’s attorney is unacceptable. Justices Sullivan and Rucker dissent.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. v. AMCO Company, et al.
33A01-1103-CT-104
Civil tort. Grants rehearing to clarify the disposition of opinion. While all parties may be parties to the appeal, the reversal of summary judgment only applies to Holiday Hospitality. The other petitioners forfeited the right to appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against them because only Holiday Hospitality appealed the trial court decision.

Corey Fletcher v. State of Indiana
79A02-1009-CR-1096
Criminal. Reverses denial of Fletcher’s motion for discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B). The trial court improperly denied his motion. Judge Friedlander dissents.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Ay.L. and Al.L.; and R.L. and K.L. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1104-JT-448
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Adam Hanna v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1107-EX-667
Agency appeal. Affirms decision by the review board denying Hanna’s unemployment benefits.

Ramezan Hajizadeh v. Jo Hajizadeh a/k/a Jo Owens (NFP)
88A01-1012-DR-678
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution court’s amended order dividing the marital property and denying Ramezan Hajizadeh’s requests for maintenance, enforcement of a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I-864 affidavit of support, and attorney fees.

Steven D. Stocker and Nancy J. Stocker v. Connie L. Schnapf, as Trustee of Trust B Established Under the Thomas M. Crane Primary Trust Agreement Dated November 12, 1992 (NFP)
82A01-1106-MF-244
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms judgment in favor of Schnapf and against the Stockers as to their liability under a promissory note and mortgage.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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