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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT