ILNews

Opinions June 14, 2010

June 14, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Ronald D. Dean v. Kristine M. Weaver
20A03-1001-MI-9
Civil. Affirms order denying Dean's motion seeking collection of his expert-witness fees from Weaver. The Indiana trial court that had acquired restrictive jurisdiction pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 28(E) to conduct ancillary discovery proceedings lacks the jurisdiction to reopen the cause and hear Dean’s motion on the payment of his fees.

C.E.K., II v. State of Indiana
28A05-1002-JV-100
Juvenile. Affirms order C.E.K. II register as a sex offender. Wallace didn't hold that the Sex Offender Registration Act is a wholly punitive measure that would violate the juvenile code's rehabilitative policies. C.E.K.'s argument that the juvenile court lacks subject matter jurisdiction fails.

Steve Pigg v. State of Indiana
52A02-0907-CV-666
Civil. Affirms denial of Pigg's motion for delivery of money from his former attorney. Pigg has waived his claim of injury due to lack of a hearing by failing to request a hearing. But, waiver notwithstanding, Pigg failed to demonstrate any abuse of discretion by the trial court in holding a trial by affidavit. Concludes from the evidence that attorney Kiefer has proven that no unearned portions of the retainer paid for Pigg's representation remained upon Kiefer's termination of that representation.

Diosha L. Lamb v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A03-0912-CR-591
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Vickie A. Chaffins v. State of Indiana (NFP)

17A03-1001-CR-98
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony dealing methamphetamine.

Robert D. Storey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-0911-PC-622
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Christopher Roberts v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1002-CR-147
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft, Class C felony burglary, and Class D felony possession of stolen property.

Rick Glascoe v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A04-0911-CR-635
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

S.H. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and D.O. McComb & Sons, Inc. (NFP)
93A02-0912-EX-1191
Civil. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT