ILNews

Opinions June 2, 2011

June 2, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Larry Ault v. State of Indiana
49A04-1008-CR-492
Criminal. Reverses conviction of felony murder and remands for a new trial. There was sufficient evidence, without Ault’s testimony, to support a jury instruction on self-defense.

Shepherd Properties Co., d/b/a ShepCo Commercial Finishes v. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 91
49A04-1010-PL-676
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of ShepCo’s motion to correct error challenging an order awarding attorney fees to International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 91 as the prevailing party in an action under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act. The trial court erroneously imposed upon ShepCo joint and several liability for statutory attorney fees under the APRA as there is no provision for the assessment of attorney fees against a private party in the event of improper nondisclosure under the act. Remands for further proceedings.

David W. Johnson and Priscilla Johnson v. Madison Regatta, Inc., and American Boat Racing Association (NFP)
39A01-1008-CT-398
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Madison Regatta and American Boat Racing Association on the Johnsons’ complaint for damages after Priscilla was injured after being hit by a car while watching the regatta.

Estate of Maurice Kendrick, Sr., Susan K. Kussart, as Guardian of B.K. v. Estate of Maurice Kendrick, Sr., Crystal Burke-Potts, et al. (NFP)
46A03-1007-ES-361
Estate supervised. Reverses determination that B.K. failed to prove she is an heir of the deceased, Maurice Kendrick Sr. Remands with instructions.

Stephen Ray Jones, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1006-CR-702
Criminal. Affirms sentences for Class C felony dealing in marijuana and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Kem Linn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1010-CR-1293
Criminal. Affirms sentences following guilty plea to Class C felonies corrupt business influence and fraud on a financial institution, and five counts of Class C felony forgery.

Herman Cecil Mallory v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1007-PC-493
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jason L. Prater v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A05-1009-CR-595
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT