ILNews

Opinions June 13, 2013

June 13, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Re: the Name Change of Jane Doe, Petitioner, Mary Doe, a Minor, and Baby Doe, a Minor
49A02-1211-MI-894
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of mother Jane Doe’s petition to change her and her children’s names without publishing notice of the change based on the evidence in the record and current law. Mother may be able to protect some information from public record by going through Administrative Rule 9, but she did not choose to do so.

Anthony J. Iemma, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Successor by Merger with Bank One, N.A.

20A03-1207-MF-326
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses and remands with instructions that the court vacate its order setting aside the tax deeds in Cause No. 41 and its grant of summary judgment and decree of foreclosure in Cause No. 188. LRB is the owner of the two lots in question and there is no longer any basis for the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and foreclosure in favor of Chase in Cause No. 188.

A.P. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and UGN, Inc. (NFP)
93A02-1210-EX-804
Agency action. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

Deborah K. Wagner as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Harry L. Tillman v. Jeffrey L. Finney as Guardian of the Person and Estate of R. Virginia Tillman (NFP)
82A05-1207-GU-375
Guardianship. Affirms order enforcing a prenuptial provision for spousal support upon petition by Finney. Remands for clarification of the payee of attorney fees.

Richard Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1206-CR-310
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for one count each of Class A felonies conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine and dealing in methamphetamine (manufacturing).

Juan A. Gonzales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1210-PC-421
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brandan Bellamy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-CR-866
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

Stephen L. Gilmore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A01-1207-CR-321
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class C felony reckless homicide.

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT