ILNews

Opinions - June 2, 2010

June 2, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline June 1:

Indiana Supreme Court
Lisa M. Beckingham v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Cenveo Corporation

93S02-0907-EX-308
Civil. Reverses and remands judgment of the Review Board, which denied Beckingham’s unemployment benefits for violating her employer’s no-fault attendance rule due to cases of personal illness, illness of her children, and various difficulties involving daycare.

John D. Giovanoni II v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Clarian Health Partners Inc.
93S02-0907-EX-311
Civil. Reverses judgment of the Review Board, which denied Giovanoni’s unemployment benefits for violating his employer’s no-fault attendance rule when he missed work due to an arachnoid cyst in his brain that caused seizures and debilitating migraines.

Today’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before today’s IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Allen M. Parker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-CR-1068
Criminal. Affirms Parker’s convictions of two counts of battery as Class B misdemeanors.

George Blair v. State of Indiana (NFP)
http://www.theindianalawyer.com/html/opinions-pdf.asp?pdf=06021004jgb.pdf
49A02-0911-CR-1069
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Blair’s probation and the trial court’s order that he serve the entire four-year sentence that was originally suspended.

Dale Whybrew v. State of Indiana (NFP)

20A03-0909-CR-415
Criminal. Affirms Whybrew’s conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, for which he received an aggregate sentence of 14 years in the Department of Correction with two years suspended to probation.

Alvino Pizano v. Edwin Buss (NFP)
33A01-1002-MI-42
Civil. Affirms trial court’s summary denial of Pizano’s petition for writ of habeas corpus relief on the grounds that his petition alleged a future, rather than a current, illegal restraint.

D.G. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-0911-JV-1134
Juvenile. Affirms D.G.’s delinquency adjudication for battery, which would have been a Class C felony if committed by an adult.
 
David Michael Harris v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-0909-CR-528
Criminal. Affirms Harris’ sentence for forgery, a Class C felony; identity deception, a Class D felony; failure to register as a convicted sex offender, a Class D felony; and his adjudication as a habitual offender.

Auto-Owners Insurance Co., et al. v. Cara Stansifer (NFP)

02A05-0911-CV-665
Civil. Affirms trial court’s orders granting Stansifer’s motion to enforce settlement agreement and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Auto-Owners argued that there was no meeting of the minds regarding certain terms of the settlement agreement and that, consequently, the trial court erred by enforcing the agreement.

Aundrea Bell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-CR-1091
Criminal. Affirms Bell’s conviction of resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor.
 
Jessica Randolph v. State of Indiana (NFP)
http://www.theindianalawyer.com/html/opinions-pdf.asp?pdf=06021003jgb.pdf
49A04-0911-CR-627
Criminal. Affirms Randolph’s conviction of domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor.
 
Michael Chester v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1003-CR-117
Criminal. Reverses and remands Chester’s sentence imposed following his guilty pleas to Class B felony dealing in cocaine, and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance; and his admission to being a habitual offender. Chester contends that the trial court erroneously attached the habitual offender sentence enhancement to his maintaining a common nuisance conviction.

M.K. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-JV-1176
Juvenile. Reverses and remands trial court’s order adjudicating M.K. a juvenile delinquent for an act that would have constituted carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor, had it been committed by an adult. Finds that M.K. has waived the argument regarding the admission of the handgun into evidence, but that it was the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel that led to the waiver.
 
C.S. Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services; C.A.J. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
46A03-0910-JV-465
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s denial of C.A.J.’s petition to modify the dispositional decree placing his biological son, C.S., in foster care, and the permanency plan approving the goal of termination of parental rights.

Chris Gordon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0909-CR-874
Criminal. Affirms Gordon’s convictions of murder, a felony; carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor; and resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor. Also affirms finding that he was a habitual offender.

Joshua Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-0912-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms Brown’s sentence following a guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine, a Class C felony.
 
Stuart Reed, et al. v. Indianapolis Welding Supply Inc., et al. (NFP)
49A05-0909-CV-535
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of dismissal of some of counter- and third-party claims against appellants/plaintiffs/counterclaim defendants Indianapolis Welding Supply, Inc., d/b/a Medical Oxygen Company d/b/a Med O2 and appellee/third-party defendant Dwight Darlage.
 
David J. Goehst v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1001-CR-51
Criminal. Affirms Goehst’s three-year executed sentence that was imposed following his guilty plea to theft, a Class D felony.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before 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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT