ILNews

Opinions July 18, 2012

July 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Annette Pittman v. State of Indiana
49A02-1112-CR-1132
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. I.C. 12-23-15-2 did not require the arresting officer, or other law enforcement personnel elsewhere, to perform an evaluation so thorough as to eliminate all other possible causes for each of the symptoms of alcoholic intoxication that Pittman exhibited.

Howard Justice v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
49A02-1112-PL-1078
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for American Family on its claim that the workers’ compensation setoff provision reduced the limits of the liability policy such that its liability under Justice’s policy was zero. After a determination of liability and damages, Justice’s damages award should be reduced by the $25,000 recovery from Wagner and the percentage of workers’ compensation benefits paid to Justice based upon Wagner’s percentage of comparative fault, up to a maximum of $25,000. Remands with instructions.

Covered Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc., Clark County, Indiana Commission, et al. v. Town of Sellersburg, Indiana
10A01-1101-PL-13
Civil plenary. Affirms ruling in favor of Sellersburg that the town’s annexation proceedings should take priority over an incorporation proceeding and the dismissal of remonstrance filed against annexation. The annexation proceeding is first in time and takes priority over the incorporation proceeding because it was validly instituted in June 2008 and Sellersburg’s initial failure to comply with the statutory notice provisions and hold a public hearing did not invalidate the annexation. Holds that the statutory remonstrance waiver requirements were substantially complied with and thus the remonstrance lacks sufficient valid signatures.

Demarco Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1109-CR-454
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Curtis L. Bass v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1110-CR-473
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony burglary and a subsequent order revoking community corrections placement and committing Bass to the DOC for six years.

In the Matter of M.W. and K.W.-N., Minor Children Alleged to be in Need of Services; M.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
34A05-1201-JC-27
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms finding that children are in need of services.
 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT