ILNews

Opinions Jan. 31, 2012

January 31, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Dale J. Atkins v. Michael Zenk
11-1891
Civil. Affirms U.S. District Court’s denial of habeas corpus petition, holding Atkins did not prove his claim that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of trial counsel.

Indiana Supreme Court
Henry C. Bennett and Schupan & Sons, Inc. v. John Richmond and Jennifer Richmond
20S03-1105-CV-293
Civil. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed a psychologist to testify on behalf of a plaintiff in a personal injury case as to the cause of a brain injury or in finding that the psychologist’s testimony was based on reliable scientific principles.  

Reginald N. Person, Jr. v. Carol A. Shipley
20S03-1110-CT-609
Civil tort. Holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony offered by a personal injury defendant in a rear-end collision case. Dr. Turner’s opinions were based on reliable scientific principles that could be applied to the facts at issue.

Indiana Court of Appeals
William R. Wallace v. State of Indiana
26A01-1101-CR-9
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order denying Wallace’s motion to dismiss a charge of Class D felony voyeurism for videotaping without consent a sexual encounter he had with a woman.

Nathan Anderson v. State of Indiana
49A05-1105-CR-243
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for murder, but reverses convictions of and vacates sentences for burglary and abuse of a corpse, holding Anderson had been denied his request for counsel prior to making statements in interrogation and that the admission of that testimony into evidence at trial influenced the jury’s decision.

Steven Nowling v. State of Indiana
31A01-1010-CR-552
Criminal. On petition for rehearing, the appellate court affirmed its original decision affirming the trial court, holding that during trial Nowling never objected to testimony by a forensic scientist who affirmed the presence of methamphetamine in a pen hull seized from Nowling’s home.

Christopher Stark v. State of Indiana
49A05-1104-CR-152
Criminal. On interlocutory appeal, affirms trial court’s denial of Stark’s motion to suppress evidence that he had a handgun in his possession, holding that a police officer found the gun when retrieving Starks’ coat and that any intrusion in finding the gun was minimal.

Ronald D. Tiede v. State of Indiana (NFP)
91A04-1105-CR-248
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to withdraw guilty pleas to two counts of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and affirms trial court’s modification of the sentence contained in Tiede’s plea agreement.

Jason Schapker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1106-CR-258
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Gary Hollin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A01-1108-CR-389
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentence following determination that Hollin violated his probation.

In the Matter of M.K., I.K., and N.K.; R.K. and E.K. v. Indiana Department of Child Services and Stephen P. Griebel (NFP)
02A03-1104-JC-151
Juvenile. Reverses trial court’s determination that a couple’s three children were children in need of services, holding that the Department of Child Services was overzealous in removing the children from the parents’ care at a time when the family was intact but had suffered a series of unfortunate circumstances.

Daddys 'O Pub, LLC v. Purkey Enterprises, Inc. (NFP)
29A02-1105-PL-439
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s determination that an 1897 deed did not create an easement in Purkey Enterprises’ building that would enable the owners of an adjoining pub to use its stairway to access the second story of the pub’s building.

Nick Khanthamany v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1106-CR-497
Criminal. Affirms convictions of felony murder and conspiracy to commit robbery.

James Eubanks, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1105-CR-212
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony burglary.

Samantha Bradley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-513
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Susan Kohl v. Duane Kohl (NFP)
34A05-1105-DR-289
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s determination that that husband’s pension should not be included as a marital asset, but finding that the wife presented sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that an equal division of marital property is just and reasonable; remands to the trial court with instructions to award 60 percent of the marital estate to the wife and 40 percent to the husband.

Brien Clayton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1102-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, finding harmless any error in the admission of opinion testimony and sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Indiana Tax Court had issued no 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. "Am I bugging you? I don't mean to bug ya." If what I wrote below is too much social philosophy for Indiana attorneys, just take ten this vacay to watch The Lego Movie with kiddies and sing along where appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etzMjoH0rJw

  2. I've got some free speech to share here about who is at work via the cat's paw of the ACLU stamping out Christian observances.... 2 Thessalonians chap 2: "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last."

  3. Did someone not tell people who have access to the Chevy Volts that it has a gas engine and will run just like a normal car? The batteries give the Volt approximately a 40 mile range, but after that the gas engine will propel the vehicle either directly through the transmission like any other car, or gas engine recharges the batteries depending on the conditions.

  4. Catholic, Lutheran, even the Baptists nuzzling the wolf! http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-documents-reveal-obama-hhs-paid-baptist-children-family-services-182129786-four-months-housing-illegal-alien-children/ YET where is the Progressivist outcry? Silent. I wonder why?

  5. Thank you, Honorable Ladies, and thank you, TIL, for this interesting interview. The most interesting question was the last one, which drew the least response. Could it be that NFP stamps are a threat to the very foundation of our common law American legal tradition, a throwback to the continental system that facilitated differing standards of justice? A throwback to Star Chamber’s protection of the landed gentry? If TIL ever again interviews this same panel, I would recommend inviting one known for voicing socio-legal dissent for the masses, maybe Welch, maybe Ogden, maybe our own John Smith? As demographics shift and our social cohesion precipitously drops, a consistent judicial core will become more and more important so that Justice and Equal Protection and Due Process are yet guiding stars. If those stars fall from our collective social horizon (and can they be seen even now through the haze of NFP opinions?) then what glue other than more NFP decisions and TRO’s and executive orders -- all backed by more and more lethally armed praetorians – will prop up our government institutions? And if and when we do arrive at such an end … will any then dare call that tyranny? Or will the cost of such dissent be too high to justify?

ADVERTISEMENT