ILNews

Opinions July 13, 2012

July 13, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
John W. Schoettmer and Karen Schoettmer v. Jolene C. Wright and South Central Community Action Program, Inc.
49A04-1108-CT-406
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Wright and South Central Community Action Program Inc., finding that the plaintiffs did not timely file notice as governed by the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

Robert Hatcher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1111-CR-1075
Criminal. Reverses and remands trial court revocation of probation, holding that the court could not conclude that Hatcher knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.
 
Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company as Subrogee of Plymouth Wesleyan Church v. Michiana Contracting, Inc., McGrath Refrigeration, Inc., John D. McGrath, Joseph A. Dzierla and Assoc., Inc., et al.
50A03-1111-CT-518
Civil tort. Reverses and remands summary judgment for Michiana, et al., holding that damage to a church addition’s gym floor that was destroyed when a sprinkler froze and burst is not subject to terms of a contact’s waiver of subrogation because the church, not the contractors, performed the work.
 
Michael J. Gosnell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1110-CR-951
Criminal. Affirms trial court sentence after guilty plea on a charge of conspiracy to commit robbery while armed with a deadly weapon.

Swammi, Inc., f/k/a Swami, Inc. v. Shambaugh, Kast, Beck, Williams, LLP and John S. Bloom (NFP)
02A01-1109-PL-417
Civil plenary. Affirms jury verdict that defendants were not liable for legal malpractice.

Alpha Holder, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1111-CR-516
Criminal. Affirms trial court sentence of nine years executed for convictions of Class C felony fraud on a financial institution and being a habitual offender.

Corey Cole v. State of Indiana
49A02-1111-CR-1019
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction of Class B felony rape, holding the trial court did not commit reversible error when it sustained the state’s objection to Cole’s attempt to refresh the victim’s memory with the notes from a nurse, and that the trial court did not commit fundamental error when it allowed hearsay statements.
 
Donald Humphrey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A04-1111-CR-607
Criminal. Affirms trial court convictions of Class C felony intimidation and Class D felony intimidation.

Devonte Rogers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1111-CR-1015
Criminal. Affirms trial court convictions of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and two counts of Class D felony criminal confinement.
 
Nancy J. Ferguson and Nyla R. Hamilton v. Natalie A. Watkins (NFP)
28A01-1201-PL-7
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to set aside a deed in favor of Watkins.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of B.M. and A.M. (Minor Children) and J.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1112-JT-1189
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights.

 

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT