ILNews

Opinions June 1, 2011

June 1, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Jeffery Sloan v. State of Indiana
18S04-1009-CR-502
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class A felony and Class C felony child molesting. Holds once concealment has been established, statutes of limitations for criminal offenses are tolled under Indiana Code 35-41-4-2(h) until a prosecuting authority becomes aware or should have become aware of sufficient evidence to charge the defendant. Also holds that under the facts of this case, there was no double jeopardy violation because each challenged offense was established by separate and distinct facts. Justices Sullivan and Rucker dissent.
 
Indiana Court of Appeals
Eddie Vance, Jr. v. State of Indiana
18A04-1011-CR-701
Criminal. Affirms decision to recommit Vance to the Department of Correction because he was released for parole prematurely. The trial court had personal jurisdiction over him and acted within a reasonable time when it reordered him back to the DOC.

Jonathan Wirth v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
22A01-1009-CT-440
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of American Family Mutual Insurance, in which the court found American Family is entitled to repayment of its medical lien pursuant to its insurance contract with Wirth. Wirth negotiated his settlement with the tortfeasor, which was completely satisfied as evidenced by the executed Release of All Claims form. In absence of any evidence that the settlement was reasonable and American Family’s lien should be reduced, American Family is entitled to complete repayment of its medical lien.

Antione A. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-CR-1162
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony battery and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Joseph K. Todd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A03-1011-CR-566
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony failure to appear.

Julius Cabell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1010-CR-548
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress marijuana and statements made to police.

William Soper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1009-CR-611
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for jail time credit.

I
nvoluntary Commitment of A.K. (NFP)
18A02-1011-MH-1199
Mental health. Affirms order for A.K.’s regular involuntary commitment.

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