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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT