ILNews

Opinions June 16, 2011

June 16, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
T.R. v. Review Board
93A02-1005-EX-640
Agency action. Affirms Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board decision affirming the findings by the administrative law judge that T.R. left her employment without good cause. T.R. was afforded due process and the ALJ’s findings are supported by the evidence.

Luciano Torres v. State of Indiana (NFP)
44A03-1011-CR-615
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Ralph L. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1011-CR-557
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony robbery.

Eric Bell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A04-1008-CR-489
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained upon the execution of a search warrant.

Brandon Livers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1011-CR-580
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of the balance of Livers’ suspended sentence.

Michael E. Cooper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A05-1010-CR-653
Criminal. Reverses sentence for four counts of Class D felony fraud and one count of Class D felony theft. Remands with instructions.

Kathleen M. Brockman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A01-1011-CR-645
Criminal. Affirms conviction of false informing as a Class B misdemeanor.

Douglas Boston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A05-1010-CR-626
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class D felony possession of chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT