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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT