ILNews

Opinions June 24, 2011

June 24, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Involuntary Commitment of S.S.
49A02-1011-MH-1251
Mental health. Affirms order for S.S.’s temporary commitment. There was no prejudice to S.S. due to the doctor’s report being filed 16 minutes after the end of her detention period. The timely filing of the report is a procedural requirement, not a jurisdiction prerequisite.  

Aaron Shields v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1009-CR-558
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony forgery.

Robert A. Hutchens v. BAC Home Loans Servicing (NFP)
29A02-1010-MF-1085
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment for BAC Home Loans Servicing on its foreclosure claim against Hutchens, and for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems and Bank of America National Association as to Hutchens’ claims that the parties should have filed a satisfaction of mortgage on Hutchens’ home equity line of credit.  

Terry Allen Wagster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1011-CR-590
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class C felony exploitation of an endangered adult.

Jomisha Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1011-CR-578
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony possession of cocaine.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of Dam.T., et al.; K.T. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
49A05-1010-JT-694
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Timothy L. Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1011-CR-752
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony receiving stolen property.

Lee Kershaw v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1011-CR-572
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony voluntary manslaughter and Class A felony attempted voluntary manslaughter.

Fernando B. Eguia, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
01A05-1010-CR-627
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class D felony intimidation.

Elijah Roberson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1011-CR-564
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony child molesting.

Joseph A. Taylor v. Mitch Daniels, et al. (NFP)
67A01-1011-MI-600
Miscellaneous. Reverses denial of Taylor’s amended complaint against Gov. Mitch Daniels and other defendants.

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