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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT