ILNews

Opinions June 13, 2012

June 13, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Michael W. Baker v. State of Indiana
89S01-1109-CR-543
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary, finding the evidence suggesting that Baker opened cupboards and drawers in the kitchen is enough to support a reasonable inference that the defendant entered the church with intent to commit theft inside.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

United States of America v. Cristofer Tichenor
11-2433
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Criminal. Affirms 300-month sentence following guilty plea to armed robbery and discharging a firearm in connection with robbing a bank. Rejects Tichenor’s argument that the career offender sentencing guideline is unconstitutionally vague, finding that the guidelines are not susceptible to vagueness challenges and the U.S. Sentencing Commission did not exceed its authority by promulgating the “crime of violence” definition.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

In Re the Matter of: B.N. and H.C., Children in Need of Services; M.C. v. Marion Co. Dept. of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc.
49A02-1110-JC-1025
Juvenile. Reverses determination that children are in need of services. There is insufficient evidence to support the determination that the children’s physical or mental conditions were seriously impaired or endangered as a result of the inability, refusal or neglect of the parent to supply the children with food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education or supervision.

Anthony D. Gorman v. State of Indiana
49A05-1110-CR-556
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. There is sufficient evidence to support his convictions.

Dennis Jack Horner v. Marcia (Horner) Carter
34A02-1111-DR-1029
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Horner’s request to modify the terms of a mediated settlement agreement. Alternative Dispute Resolution Rule 2.11 and Indiana Evidence Rule 408 allow the introduction of mediation communications to establish traditional contract defenses, so the trial court erred in excluding the evidence of mediation communications to establish that a mistake occurred in drafting the agreement.  But his testimony about the mediation communications falls short of establishing any mistake that might entitle him to relief, so this was a harmless error. The trial court properly determined that the agreement in this case provided for a property settlement that survived Carter’s remarriage.

Chad Stewart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1110-CR-972
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony child molesting.

Auto Liquidation Center, Inc. v. McKesha Bates (NFP)
02A03-1111-SC-553
Small claim. Affirms judgment in favor of Bates on her breach of contract and criminal conversion claims. Remands for calculation of appellate attorney fees owed to Bates.

Carl D. Jackson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1111-CR-500
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

Anthony Michael Beck and Sandra Beck, natural parents and next friends of Jacob Leslie Beck, minor v. Scott Memorial Hospital and Larry Hunefeld, M.D. (NFP)
72A01-1107-CC-293
Civil collection. Affirms grant of a motion in limine filed by Scott Memorial Hospital.

 

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT