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

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT