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. 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