ILNews

Opinions July 20, 2012

July 20, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Bradley M. Shideler v. Michael J. Astrue, commissioner of Social Security
11-3284
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L.
Miller Jr.
Civil. Affirms denial of application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. The administrative law judge adequately evaluated Shideler’s credibility. Whatever his current condition is, the ALJ’s decision finding that he was not disabled as of March 31, 2000, is supported by substantial evidence.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Devon D. Dokes, Jr. v. State of Indiana
71A03-1111-CR-503
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation for being a felon in possession of a handgun. Because the difference between the burden of proof required to convict someone of a crime and the burden of proof required to revoke probation, the court could revoke probation after finding Dokes not guilty based on the same evidence.

James Lee Paul v. State of Indiana
82A05-1111-CR-634
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for murder. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing certain evidence as the danger to the officers and the tenants, coupled with the tampering of evidence, was an exigent circumstance that made it impractical for the officers to obtain an arrest warrant before arresting Paul.

Bradley D. Haub v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentences stemming from three different causes for Class B felony aiding burglary, two counts of Class C felony forgery, Class D felony auto theft, and Class D felony theft.

Anthony Lee Leturgez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1112-CR-1105
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.P. and P.S. (Minor Children); A.P. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
03A01-1107-JT-309
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of B.B. and L.H. (Minor Children); Lo.H. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1111-JT-1101
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jamey Wayne Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1110-CR-1066
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges were forfeited for life.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT