Opinions Jan. 19, 2012

January 19, 2012
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Raymond Benjamin Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)

Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Stacey L. Certain v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.