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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT