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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT