ILNews

Opinions July 28, 2011

July 28, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jason Keigley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1012-CR-743
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class C felony identity deception and five counts of Class D felony fraud in loan brokering.

Michael Yates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1009-CR-582
Criminal. Affirms convictions of felony aiding, inducing, or causing murder and two counts of aiding, inducing, or causing attempted murder as Class A felonies.

Christina Smith v. Trilogy Health Services (NFP)
67A05-1006-PL-644
Civil plenary. Reverses order Smith pay $1,000 in attorney fees to Trilogy Health Services as a sanction for a discovery dispute. Remands for further proceedings.

Metals & Additives Corp., Inc., et al. v. Dagoberto Hornedo, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1011-PL-1213
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Metals & Additives Corp.’s request for injunctive relief seeking to prevent Hornedo and St. Louis Group from using MAC trade secrets and alleging Hornedo breached his fiduciary duties.

Kimberly A. Kelley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1010-CR-638
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony neglect of a dependent, revises the sentence to the advisory sentence, and remands with instructions to vacate the Class A felony battery conviction and sentence.

Betty Nolot v. Richard A. Nolot, et al. (NFP)
22A01-1012-PL-643
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of summary judgment for Richard Nolot as to the invasion of privacy claim and the grant of summary judgment for Richard on the trespass claim. Reverses grant of summary judgment for Richard on the conversion, unjust enrichment, and replevin claims. Remands for further proceedings.

Johnnie Gustafson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A04-1010-CR-647
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.

Marvin Ervin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1107-CR-347; 49A02-1002-CR-123
Criminal. On remand from Indiana Supreme Court, affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender.

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. 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