ILNews

Opinions Jan. 18, 2013

January 18, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Linda K. Roddy v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
12-1682
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Vacates judgment of the District Court and remands Roddy’s case for disability insurance benefits to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. Finds the administrative law judge made a number of errors in his consideration of the record, in which he denied her benefits.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jermaine Hines v. State of Indiana
48A02-1206-CR-442
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Law enforcement had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to detain Hines.

John F. Harris, III v. State of Indiana
20A03-1205-CR-210
Criminal. Affirms conviction of possession of cocaine, enhanced to a Class B felony because the offense occurred within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex. There was proof that children were residing in the immediate vicinity at the time of the offense. Reverses habitual offender finding because the state failed to prove Harris has more than one dealing offense.

Kelly Bertholet Stokes v. Estate of Kenneth Stokes (NFP)
64A05-1205-ES-237
Estate, supervised. Dismisses interlocutory appeal filed by Kelly Bertholet Stokes after her motion to correct error was denied following the denial of her motion for reimbursement of monies seized by bank.

Danielle Kelly v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1112-CR-584
Criminal. Grants rehearing to address Kelly’s claim that the court failed to consider a “dispositive fact” in its discussion regarding incriminating statements, but affirms opinion in all respects which upheld denial of Kelly’s motion to suppress.

Matthew A. Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1202-CR-66
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting.

Jonathan Books v. State of Indiana (NFP)
25A03-1208-CR-357
Criminal. Affirms sanction for probation violation.
 

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