ILNews

Opinions Jan. 30, 2012

January 30, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

State of Indiana v. Johnnie S. McCaa
56A04-1107-CR-341
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s grant of McCaa’s motion to suppress evidence, holding that due to the unusual circumstances of an initial traffic stop, police did not err in asking McCaa to drive his truck to another location, where he ultimately failed field sobriety tests.

Latoyia Billingsley v. State of Indiana
02A03-1107-CR-301
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended within 10 years of a prior infraction, holding that Billingsley’s driving record shows that her license had been previously suspended, and she had been convicted of driving while suspended within 10 years of the most recent offense.

A.T. (Mother) v. G.T. (Father)
39A05-1107-DR-335
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court’s denial of mother’s petition for a change of judge in a custody modification action filed by the father, holding that the trial court should have automatically granted the request for automatic change of judge under Trial Rule 76(B). Furthermore, the trial court should not have held the modification hearing, as it was deprived of jurisdiction by the timely filing of the Trial Rule 76(B) request.

Fletcher Coleman and Dorothy Coleman v. Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization, Inc., and Northeast Neighborhood Council, Inc. (NFP)
71A05-1106-CT-300
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s denial of the Colemans’ motion to strike portions of Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization’s affidavits, finding no genuine issues of material fact exist.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.S., minor child, and T.S. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, Scott County Office (NFP)
72A01-1107-JT-329
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Anthony A. May v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1107-CR-697
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child.

Andre Perry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1105-CR-438
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm, three counts of Class B felony criminal confinement and one count of Class C felony robbery.

Kristen Leach v. Steven Leach (NFP)
39A01-1108-DR-332
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order granting custody of children to father.

Jesse C.E. Rayford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
01A02-1106-CR-554
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, but remands for resentencing, holding that the combined term of imprisonment and period of probation should not exceed one year.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT