Opinions July 7, 2011

July 7, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
N.K. v. Review Board
Civil. Reverses determination by the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development that a worker fired for taking leftovers was not entitled to unemployment benefits.

Thomas A. Peel v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea, holding that Peel did not tender a proper written motion to the court.

Christopher Hovis v. State of Indiana

Criminal. Dismisses appeal of trial court’s denial of belated motion to correct error pursuant to Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 2(2). Holds that at the time of defendant’s sentencing, existing caselaw supported a direct appeal of any perceived sentencing errors after a plea of guilty and that Hovis is therefore not entitled to a second direct appeal.

Vernon D. Hall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony burglary.

Tyrone A. Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony criminal recklessness with a deadly weapon, Class A misdemeanor battery, and Class C felony battery.

Donald L. Helton v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony possession of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex and Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Rick W. Bagby, II v. Carla M. Bagby (NFP)

Divorce resolution. Affirms trial court’s grant of mother’s petition to modify custody.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues