ILNews

Opinions Jan. 19, 2012

January 19, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court
Chrysler Group, LLC v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and T.A., et al.
93S02-1109-EX-565
Agency appeal. Affirms award of benefits to Chrysler employees offered a buyout. By Chrysler’s own words — to Congress and its own employees — Enhanced Voluntary Termination of Employment Program was part of a company-wide effort intended to avert twenty-nine manufacturing plant closures, twenty-two parts depot closures, and 53,000 layoffs. The board’s conclusion on this issue of ultimate fact was reasonable.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Tommy D. Alfrey v. State of Indiana
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2012/january/01191203cjb.pdf
54A01-1104-CR-169
Criminal. Affirms convictions in three separate cause numbers of Class D felony residential entry, theft, escape and residential entry, Class A misdemeanor trespass, and revocation of probation. Intoxication is not a defense and Alfrey’s situation does not fall under the two narrow exceptions outlined in I.C. 35-41-3-5.

Fernando Contreras v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1106-CR-255
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty pleas to Class B felony burglary and Class C felony escape.

Beth E. Myers v. Rising Sun-Ohio County Community School Corporation (NFP)
58A05-1104-CT-193
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for the school corporation on Myers’ complaint asserting she was wrongfully discharged in retaliation for her workers' compensation claim.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.T.; K.A. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, and Lake County CASA (NFP)
45A03-1105-JT-207
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Raymond Benjamin Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1106-CR-327
Criminal. Affirms sentence for convictions of Class C felony criminal recklessness and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Marie Robinson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

67A01-1107-CR-306
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Stacey L. Certain v. State of Indiana (NFP)
91A02-1106-CR-546
Criminal. Reverses sentence for Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life and remands with instructions to resentence Certain to the advisory sentence of four years.

Bart A. Dewald v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1010-CR-541
Criminal.  Affirms sentences for conspiracy to commit aggravated battery, criminal confinement, intimidation, pointing a firearm, and criminal recklessness, and remands with instructions to vacate one conviction of conspiracy to commit aggravated battery and resentence Dewald in accordance with the opinion. Judge Baker concurs in part and dissents in part.

I.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1101-JV-41
Juvenile. Grants rehearing and affirms original decision reversing the juvenile court’s order of restitution. Remanded for a new restitution hearing.

Dominique Guyton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-PC-724
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT