ILNews

Opinions July 26, 2012

July 26, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court

Michael J. Lock v. State of Indiana
35S04-1110-CR-622
Criminal. Affirms Lock’s conviction and sentence for Class D felony operating a motor vehicle as a habitual traffic violator and the revocation of his driving privileges for life. I.C. 9-30-10-16 is not unconstitutionally vague and based on the stipulation that Lock’s Zuma was traveling 43 MPH, a reasonable fact-finder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Zuma had a maximum design speed in excess of 25 MPH. Justice Rucker dissents.
 
Roger L. Bushhorn v. State of Indiana
40S01-1206-CR-309
Criminal. Affirms 47-year sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony kidnapping, Class B felony criminal confinement and Class B felony attempted escape. Finds the sentence is not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) and there was no abuse of discretion.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeremiah Cline v. State of Indiana
06A05-1111-MI-611
Miscellaneous. Affirms determination that Cline is not required to register as a sex offender but that the trial court lacked authority to order removal of his name and information from the Indiana Sex Offender Registry. He has not demonstrated his entitlement to removal as a judicial remedy but may go through the Department of Correction. Chief Judge Robb dissents.

Denise A. Mertz a/k/a Denise A. Grimmer v. Robert G. Mertz
64A03-1108-DR-360
Domestic relation. Affirms the trial court did not err in modifying Robert Mertz’s child support obligation. His plan to pay one-half of his income toward his support obligation was a sufficient plan to warrant reinstatement of his driving privileges. Chief Judge Robb dissents in part.

J. Michael Kummerer v. C. Richard Marshall
03A01-1201-CT-33
Civil tort. Affirms failure to award Kummerer prejudgment interest and failure to grant his motion to correct errors. Prejudgment interest was not appropriate in this case because the trial court had to exercise its judgment in calculating damages.

Arnold Blevins v. Raymond Arthur Brassart (NFP)
18A03-1201-PL-8
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of Blevins’ claims against Brassart because they were barred by the Statute of Frauds.

Timothy Stevenson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1111-CR-655
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Stevenson serve his previously suspended sentence.

Fredrick D. Gaither v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1202-PC-106
Post conviction. Affirms denial of successive petition for post-conviction relief.

Derrick Rockingham v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-25
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Douglas Chubb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
77A04-1110-CR-519
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

J.H. and T.G. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1112-JT-556
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Maurice Ervin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1112-CR-626
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony attendance with an animal at a fighting contest.

A.J. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

82A01-1111-JT-529
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.
 
Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at 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