ILNews

Opinions July 28, 2010

July 28, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jamarkus Gorman
09-3010
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Affirms conviction of perjury after testifying falsely before a grand jury. There is ample evidence to support the finding Gorman perjured himself with regard to the possession of a Bentley. The evidence was properly admitted, albeit as direct evidence rather than inextricable intertwinement evidence, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by any risk of unfair prejudice.  

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Adoption of H.L.W. Jr.; H.L.W. Sr. and IDCS v. L.M.D. and D.P.D.
71A03-0911-CV-516
Civil. Reverses grant of an adoption petition filed by L.M.D. and D.P.D. regarding H.L.W. Jr. The consent statutes of Indiana Code Chapter 31-19-9 enabled the trial court to consider the adoption proceeding despite the pending CHINS action. DCS met its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that its withholding of consent to the adoption was in the child’s best interests.

Nelson Rios v. State of Indiana
49A02-0912-CR-1273
Criminal. Reverses order that Rios serve consecutive sentences for convictions of two counts of dealing in a lookalike substance as Class C felonies. The imposition of consecutive sentences based on incidents that were virtually identical and very close in time contravenes rulings in Beno and Gregory. Remands for a new sentencing determination.

Putnam County Sheriff v. Pamela Rice
60A01-0911-CV-551
Civil. Affirms order denying the sheriff’s motion to dismiss filed in the civil action brought by Price for damages resulting from a car accident. The sheriff, through its agent Deputy Wallace, owed a common law duty of ordinary and reasonable care to warn the traveling public of the known hazardous condition on the icy road.

Paul Komyatti, Jr. v. State of Indiana
52A04-1002-MI-74
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief that challenged the revocation of Komyatti’s parole. There are no genuine questions of fact with respect to Komyatti’s PCR petition and the state was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

James Townsend v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-0912-CR-703
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for murder.

Gerardo Bensez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-0912-CR-611
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of conviction following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Marlinda Nunley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-0912-CR-1177
Criminal. Affirms finding Nunley violated the terms of her probation and that she serve two years of her previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction.

Thomas Eugene Ferrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-0910-CR-471
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

In The Guardianship of John Joseph Bortka, II (NFP)
88A01-0907-CV-343
Civil. Affirms order that John Jerald Bortka, former guardian of John Joseph Bortka and his estate, reimburse the guardianship estate in the amount of $12,034 and award of attorney fees to Paula Bortka Wells. Remands with instructions to calculate the amount of appellate costs Paula is entitled to from John Jerald Bortka.

Jeremy Culp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1001-CR-11
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Bruce Hatfield, et al. v. Area Plan Commission of Evansville (NFP)
82A01-0910-CV-502
Civil. Reverses trial court’s decision limiting Hatfield and others’ damages for an alleged taking.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of T.H.C.; T.C. & C.P. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
71A04-1001-JT-104
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had 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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT