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. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT