ILNews

Opinions July 2, 2013

July 2, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Tequita Ramsey v. Lightning Corporation
49A02-1209-CC-705
Civil Collection. Affirms the trial court’s judgment in decertifying the class. In this case of first impression, the COA noted it could find no logical reason to hold that a trial court may never revoke or rescind an order certifying a class. To do so would mean that once a class action is certified, the class could not be later decertified even if facts and evidence discovered afterward suggests the class should not have been certified in the first place.

Frederick L. King v. State of Indiana
02A03-1212-CR-515
Criminal. Affirms the trial court’s judgment in sentencing Frederick King to 10 years with six years suspended to probation for robbery as a Class B felony. In a per curiam decision, the COA found the sentence was not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B).

Fireworks West International, et al. v. David Prim, et al. (NFP)
49A04-1211-CT-582
Civil tort. Affirms denial of summary judgment in favor of David Prim, et al.

Iris Newt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1211-CR-503
Criminal. Affirms jury conviction of Class D felony theft and entrance of judgment and sentence as Class A misdemeanor theft.

Charles Hall v. State of Indiana (NFP)

75A03-1107-PC-331
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief for a conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Steven C. Cupery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1212-CR-547
Criminal. Affirms two-year sentence for conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine pursuant to an agreement that dismissed an unrelated criminal case.

Darryl Crenshaw and Krisean Porter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-CR-859
Criminal. Affirms denial of petitions for restricted disclosure of arrest records on dismissed charges.

Maria Torres v. Lovisa Enders (NFP)

49A02-1302-CT-122
Reverses and remands trial court order dismissing Maria Torres’ negligence claim against Lovisa Enders, holding that the trial court erred and should have granted summary judgment in favor of Torres on the issue of whether the complaint was timely brought. The court orders the complaint reinstated.

Fred L. Froeschke and Judith A. Froeschke v. City of Vincennes (NFP)

42A04-1301-PL-29
Civil plenary. Affirms order granting summary judgment in favor of the city of Vincennes.

Dwight A. Washington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1211-CR-559
Criminal. Affirms convictions of multiple counts of child molestation.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to 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. 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