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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

  2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

  3. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  4. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  5. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

ADVERTISEMENT