ILNews

Opinions July 7, 2011

July 7, 2011
Keywords
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
93A02-1012-EX-1431
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
76A05-1012-CR-809
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

02A03-1101-CR-47
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)
57A04-1012-CR-797
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony burglary.

Tyrone A. Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1011-CR-694
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)

34A04-1012-CR-805
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)

82A01-1011-DR-609
Divorce resolution. Affirms trial court’s grant of mother’s petition to modify custody.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT