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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT