ILNews

Opinions July 5, 2012

July 5, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions prior to IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Nipponkoa Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Atlas Van Lines Inc.
3:09-CV-168
Civil plenary/contract. Reverses the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana’s summary judgment for defendant and remands for further proceedings, finding summary judgment inappropriate pending further determination of the relationship between plaintiffs, defendant and ancillary parties involved in a shipping loss.   
    
Indiana Court of Appeals

Andrew Joseph Wortkoetter v. Amy Jean Wortkoetter
30A01-1111-DR-548
Domestic relations. Affirms trial court division of property in a divorce proceeding, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in equally dividing the husband’s individual retirement account. The trial court is instructed to reduce the judgment from $12,664 to $8,147, reflecting the equal division of both parties’ assets.

Brenda Stutz v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of at least 0.15 percent and remands with instructions to vacate a lesser-included conviction for Class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated, holding that the two charges should be merged.
49A02-1110-CR-960
 
In the Matter of the Involuntary Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.L.W., and K.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A04-1111-JT-684
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms trial court’s termination of parental rights.
 
Mandy Little v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms trial court sentence following a plea of guilty to Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
48A04-1110-CR-592
 
Logan Wetzel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms bench trial conviction for Class C felony battery and Class D felony criminal confinement.
49A05-1111-CR-612

State of Indiana v. Donna Stiltz (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses modification of sentence and remands to the trial court with instructions to reinstate defendant’s sentence in accordance with a plea agreement.
66A03-1202-CR-75
 
William Joseph VanHorn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal/post-conviction relief. Affirms post-conviction court’s summary disposition.   
18A02-1109-PC-837

George Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal/post-conviction relief. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of amended petition for post-conviction relief.
49A02-1104-PC-419
 
David L. Lacey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class C felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated while privileges are forfeited for life.
27A02-1109-CR-846
 
S.C. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and M., Inc. (NFP)
Executive administration/unemployment. Reverses review board’s denial of unemployment compensation.
93A02-1202-EX-69
 
In the Matter of C.R. v. State of Indiana
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of delinquency for committing what would constitute Class B felony burglary if committed by an adult.
82A04-1110-JV-595


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT