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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT