ILNews

Opinions Jan. 29, 2013

January 29, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Alden v. State of Indiana
30A01-1209-CR-412
Criminal. Affirmed trial court’s denial of petition to reduce Alden’s Class D felony conviction for operating while intoxicated to a Class A misdemeanor. In a review of the state statute covering the sentencing range for Class D felonies, the COA found the statute contained the word “may” instead of “shall” which gives the courts the freedom to deny petitions.

Michael L. Curtis v. State of Indiana

49A02-1203-MI-271
Miscellaneous. Reversed and remanded with instructions the trial court’s denial of Curtis’ Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) motion for relief from judgment following the forfeiture of his truck. The COA ruled that the pirated movies Curtis was selling from his truck do not constitute stolen or converted property and therefore he is not subject to I.C. 34-24-1-1(a)(1)(B), which allows forfeiture only in cases of theft or conversion but says nothing about copyright infringement.  

Seth Anderson v. Huntington County Board of Commissioners
35A04-1207-MI-357
Miscellaneous/public records. In a case of first impression, affirmed a public access counselor ruling that a request for emails that sought those to and from four public officials over a specified time period did not meet the requirement of the Access to Public Records Act that the requests be made with “reasonable particularity.” Even though records ultimately were provided as initially requested after a suit was filed, judges held that the PAC ruling and the county’s initial denial of the records for lack of reasonable particularity were not ARPA violations.

Kelly Coots v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1203-CR-155
Criminal. Affirms sentence of a maximum of three years in prison on a conviction of Class D felony theft.

Jeffrey A. Booth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1203-CR-118
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class D felony possession of methamphetamime.

Rudy J. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A04-1202-PC-280
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Clarence Johnson v. Juana Johnson (NFP)
45A03-1202-DR-94
Domestic relations/dissolution. Affirms judgment of trial court in all respects.

Madelyn Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1205-CR-408
Criminal. Affirms 10-year executed sentence for convictions of Class B felony neglect of a dependent, two counts of Class B felony battery, and three counts of Class D felony battery.

In Re: The Paternity of K.G.; J.G. and S.S. and A.S. (NFP)
49A05-1206-JP-307
Juvenile. Affirms trial court order awarding mother S.S. custody of daughter K.G.

Accessabilities, Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1207-EX-551
Executive administration/worker’s compensation. Affirms Department of Workforce Development Review Board decision that an employee was not discharged for just cause.

Denise Polak and Dianne Rose and Dianne Rose, Lake County Trust Co., as Trustee for Trust #6041, and Jeanne Collins Living Trust, Dianne Rose, Trustee v. Tiffiny Jordan (NFP)
64A05-1205-PL-284
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court ruling joining Polak as a party to a suit filed by Jordan.

Ray Ortega v. Susko Corp., Inc., d/b/a Our Place (NFP)

45A03-1205-CT-219
Civil tort. Affirms trial court grant of judgment on the evidence in favor of Susko.

Lanard E. Foster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1207-CR-390
Criminal. Affirms concurrent three-year sentences for convictions of Class D felony domestic battery in the presence of a child under age 16 and Class D felony domestic battery with a prior domestic battery conviction.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions 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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT