ILNews

Opinions June 10, 2011

June 10, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Liberty Country Club v. Landowners of Country Club Estates Housing Development
81A01-1007-MI-364
Miscellaneous. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the landowners of the housing development, concluding that under the terms of the covenant, Liberty is required to provide potable water to the homeowners in the development.

Brenda Bell v. Grandville Cooperative, Inc., et al.
49A04-1101-CT-2
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Grandville Cooperative and Kirkpatrick Management in Bell’s personal injury negligence action against Grandville. There is a question of fact as to whether Grandville breached its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Remands for further proceedings.

State of Indiana v. Gerald Foster
02A03-1010-CR-596
Criminal. Affirms grant of Foster’s motion to suppress. Under the totality of the circumstances, the officer’s warrantless entry and in-home arrest of Foster was unreasonable and violated Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The connection between the arrest and the securing of statements discloses near constant interaction and exploitation of the arrest and precludes a finding of attenuation. Judge May concurs in result.

D.D. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-JV-1201
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of D.D. to be a delinquent child based on true findings for one count of aiding, inducing, or causing rape, and one count of criminal confinement.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Reed Hodges, et al. (NFP)
55A01-1007-MF-334
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses order dismissing Swafford from the bank’s complaint to foreclose on a mortgage executed in favor of the bank’s assignor by Reed and Angelia Hodges. Remands for further proceedings.

Martha Tichenor v. Dana Dodson (NFP)
41A04-1010-PO-667
Protective order. Affirms grant of civil protection order against Tichenor.

Harold L. Tice Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1010-CR-518
Criminal. Affirms convictions of sexual misconduct with a minor as a Class C felony and contributing to the delinquency of a minor as a Class A misdemeanor.

Walter L. Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1010-CR-691
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony pointing a firearm.

Matthew Fearnow v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1010-CR-552
Criminal. Reverses denial of request for permission to file a belated notice of appeal. Remands for further proceedings.

Leland Stephens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1011-CR-679
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft.

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT