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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT