ILNews

Opinions June 16, 2010

June 16, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

M.T. v. State of Indiana
49A04-0908-JV-484
Juvenile. Reverses modification of probation and commitment to the Department of Correction. The state presented no evidence of the probation violations it alleged and the state violated M.T.’s due process rights.

Jason G. Ertel v. State of Indiana
29A02-0908-CR-824
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion by admitting evidence obtained after Ertel’s car was stopped because the police officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.

John Dyer, David White, and Maurice Dillender v. James H. Hall and Nu-Plaza Yacht Club

82A01-0910-CV-510
Civil. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Hall on the complaint his boat docks interfere with Dyer, White, and Dillender’s use of the river. There is an issue of fact as to whether or to what extent the landowners have access to the river, and whether the deadmen installed on the landowners’ property are a nuisance or a trespass.

Paternity of R.M.; N.C. v. K.M. (NFP)
02A03-1001-JP-21
Juvenile. Affirms order denying father N.C.’s motion for change of venue from judge pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 76(B).

David Mazhandu v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-0909-CR-890
Criminal. Affirms conviction of resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor.

James D. Boyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A04-1001-CR-30
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting. Reverses sentence and remands for it to be revised to 40 years in prison.

Rocky D. Beavers Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1002-CR-96
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony child molesting and Class B felony incest.

Herman F. Filice v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-CR-1109
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to “remove sexually violent predator status.”

J.M. Alleged to be C.H.I.N.S.; H.M. and D.M. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
20A03-0910-JV-480
Juvenile. Affirms finding that J.M. is a child in need of services.

Michael R. Pollard, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A05-0910-CR-594
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Rickey D. Gosha v. State of Indiana (NFP)

48A02-0910-CR-1006
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order that Gosha serve the remainder of his sentence.

Lorenzo Borders v. City of Elkhart, Ind., et al. (NFP)
20A03-0907-CV-346
Civil. Affirms summary judgment and motions to dismiss Borders’ complaint for false arrest and false imprisonment in favor of the City of Elkhart, et al.

George Cox, et al. v. Honorable Roger D. Davis (NFP)
31A01-0912-CV-571
Civil. Affirms dismissal of complaint filed by Cox and others against Harrison Superior Judge Davis.

Jason Wells v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-377
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting.

James A. Barber v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-0909-CR-916
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of child molestation as Class A felonies, and two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor as Class B felonies.

Larry Andrew Anderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-0911-CR-656
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony possession of a controlled substance and Class D felony possession of a legend drug.

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT