ILNews

Opinions July 7, 2014

July 7, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Z.A. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1311-JV-973
Juvenile. Reverses adjudication that Z.A. committed what would be Class D felony theft if committed by an adult. The state did not prove that Z.A. exerted unauthorized control over the television he and his mother purchased together when he took it from his mother’s home over her objection.

Freddie Patterson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1311-CR-944
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Sufficient evidence supports the conviction and the trial court did not err in redacting Patterson’s proposed final instruction nor did it commit fundamental error by adding a sentence to another instruction he tendered.

James Toy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1311-CR-446
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor intimidation.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.S. (minor child); N.W. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
48A02-1309-JT-778
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Anthony Neumeister v. City of Greenfield, Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1309-PL-387
Civil plenary. Affirms termination of Neumeister’s employment.

Maurice V. Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1311-CR-554
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony stalking.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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