ILNews

Opinions July 8, 2013

July 8, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Cincinnati Life Insurance Company v. Marjorie Beyrer
12-2365
Civil plenary. Affirms District Court rulings against Marjorie Beyrer, widow of Kevin Beyrer, in a life insurance dispute. The court found no merit on the issues she appealed after she failed to be awarded proceeds from her husband’s life insurance policy that was assigned to a third party. Dismissal of some claims for failing to comply with federal pleading standards and summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati Life on other claims was not an abuse of discretion, the court ruled.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jason J. Klinker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A05-1301-CR-26
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentence of three years for Class D felony escape.

In Re: Paternity of B.B.; M.B. v. Y.M.M. (NFP)
71A04-1208-JP-447
Juvenile Paternity. Affirms juvenile court’s finding that M.B., the father, was in contempt for failing to pay certain childcare expenses and that, Y.M.M., the mother, was not in contempt of any court order regarding visitation.

Tharl Pinkston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
38A02-1210-CR-829
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of Pinkston’s probation.

Jeffrey Bowles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A02-1208-CR-654
Criminal. Affirms Bowles’ conviction for Class D felony domestic battery.

Edwin Valladares v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1211-CR-568
Criminal. Affirms Valladares’ convictions following a bench trial for five counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class C felony child molesting, and one count of Class B misdemeanor voyeurism.

Daniel Paul Foster v. State of Indiana (NFP)

53A01-1209-CR-414
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentencing of Foster to an aggregated 26 years executed in the Department of Correction: 20 years for Class B felony aggravated battery, three years each for the two counts of Class D felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a penal facility employee (to be served consecutively to each other and to the 20 year sentence for Class B felony aggravated battery), and one year for Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief (to be served concurrently to the other sentences).

In Re The Guardianship of Carlton H. Word; Timothy W. Word and Tracy L. Wise v. Rance Buehrer, Guardian of Carlton H. Word (NFP)
76A03-1209-GU-395
Guardianship. Affirms trial court’s judgment that under the terms of the June 4, 1998, second amendment to Carlton’s trust, the Zimmerman Farm must be distributed as part of the trust residuary, rather than as a specific bequest under the trust or pursuant to an undelivered, unrecorded deed.

Christopher Long v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1211-CR-480
Criminal. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of Long’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Terrence Boyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1210-CR-498
Criminal. Affirms Boyd’s conviction, after a bench trial, for battery as a Class B misdemeanor.

Benjamen Benjamen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1210-CR-524
Criminal. Affirms Benjamen’s conviction for resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT