ILNews

Opinions July 22, 2010

July 22, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Daniel A. Donald v. State of Indiana
23A04-0912-CR-685
Criminal. Reverses and remands trial court’s denial of Donald’s request for a competency evaluation prior to his probation revocation hearing. Donald contended he was entitled to a competency evaluation pursuant to Indiana statute and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals disagreed with Donald’s statutory argument, but agreed the Due Process Clause may warrant a competency evaluation prior to a probation revocation hearing.

J. John Marshall and Marjorie Marshall v. Erie Insurance Exchange a/s/o Cindy Cain
20A03-0908-CV-366
Civil. Granted a petition for rehearing and again affirmed the trial court opinion the Marshalls had a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to neighboring landowners arising from the condition of trees on their property and further held they had breached that duty.

Trevor Brieger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0907-CR-617
Criminal. Affirms convictions of rape and criminal deviate conduct as Class B felonies.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of S.H.; A.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
76A05-1001-JT-42
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Bruce Gunstra v. Salin Bank and Trust Company (NFP)
49A02-0912-CV-1274
Civil. Affirms trial court’s order granting the motion of Salin Bank and Trust Company for pre-judgment garnishment of any distributions to Gunstra by two limited liability companies of which he is a member.

Anthony Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-0912-CR-1269
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of probation.

Indiana Tax Court
Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, Inheritance Tax Division v. Estate of Katherine S. Boehle, Deceased
49T10-0811-TA-62
Tax. Affirms Marion Probate Court’s denial of the Indiana Department of State Revenue, Inheritance Tax Division’s motion to correct error. The issue for review was whether the probate court erred in determining the estate’s inheritance tax liability regarding a trust that the decedent set up to provide for her son who has Down Syndrome and resides in an assisted-living facility.
 

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. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT