ILNews

Opinions Jan. 22, 2013

January 22, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lula L. Jenkins, et al. v. South Bend Community School Corp.
71A03-1206-PL-260
Civil plenary.  Reverses summary judgment for South Bend Community School Corp. on Jenkins’ action seeking an independent determination of whether she was discharged for just cause from her position as a bus driver. The advisory nature of the arbitrator’s award allows the non-prevailing party, here SBCSC, to reject the award, thus triggering judicial review, either under the Uniform Arbitration Act’s provisions or for a determination whether the facts found by the arbitrator support the award. Remands for further proceedings.

Erving Sanders v. State of Indiana
49A02-1205-CR-361
Criminal. Reverses denial of Sanders’ motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop for tinted windows. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Sanders for investigatory purposes at the time he observed Sanders’ vehicle.

David Frohwerk v. Mark Levenhagen (NFP)
46A04-1204-MI-211
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of verified petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting that Frohwerk was denied credit time.

Jacqueline R. Clements v. Clinton County, Indiana, by and through the Board of Commissioners of the County of Clinton, Ted R. Johnson, Barbara Conner, Michael W. Conner and William Clinton (NFP)
54A05-1205-PL-272
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Clements’ motion to correct error, which challenged the dismissal of her counterclaims against the county and other defendants and her claims for malicious prosecution.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of K.W., K.O.A., and K.E.A., Minor Children, and Their Father, O.W.: O.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A04-1205-JT-285
Juvenile.  Affirms termination of parental rights.

Aaron Di-Shon Windom v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1206-CR-253
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class C felony attempted battery and one count of Class C felony criminal recklessness.

Anthony Henderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1207-CR-367
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and reinstatement of previously suspended sentence.

Jason T. Myers v. Linda Phillips, Tippecanoe County Assessor and Office of the Indiana Attorney General, Unclaimed Property Division (NFP)
79A05-1209-PL-493
Civil plenary.  Affirms dismissal of Myers’ lawsuit seeking reimbursement of a $250 bond that was posted by his grandmother on his behalf in 1997.

Donald L. Swain v. State of Indiana (NFP)

48A05-1206-CR-320
Criminal.  Affirms order revoking probation under three different cause numbers.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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