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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT