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

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