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. Residents can't vote under our current system? Okay, let's replace the system with another system where they can't vote. Yeah, that's the ticket!

  2. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  3. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  4. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  5. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

ADVERTISEMENT