ILNews

Opinions Jan. 4, 2013

January 4, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. Daniel E. Riley
78A05-1206-CR-311
Criminal. Reverses dismissal of Class B misdemeanor battery charges. Because the information was proper even with Indiana Gaming Agent Audrey Smoot as an affiant, and because there appears to have been no other basis for the dismissal (other than possibly a mistaken belief that an unauthorized investigation would affect the information), the trial court abused its discretion in granting the dismissal.

Rori Property Holdings, LLC, et al. v. McCullough Construction Company, Inc. (NFP)
29A02-1204-PL-325
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court judgment in favor of McCullough Construction on its after-recorded mechanic’s lien and dismisses Rori Property’s appeal of judgment as it’s untimely and also dismisses appeal of denial of motion for relief from judgment.  

Sherry K. Kohues v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A04-1208-CR-393
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and remands for an amendment of the abstract of judgment to reflect good time credit.  

Ricky J. Gellinger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1204-CR-200
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT