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. 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