ILNews

Opinions June 27, 2011

June 27, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Vincent M. Butler, Jr. v. State of Indiana
84A01-1008-CR-414
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Butler’s probation. The record shows that the trial court adequately advised Butler of his right to counsel and that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived that right. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the balance of his four-year previously suspended sentence. Judge Kirsch dissents.

In the Matter of the Trust of Harrison Eiteljorg
49A02-1005-TR-485
Trust. Affirms probate court finding that the trustees failed to distribute a portion of the trust corpus in a timely manner. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding on liability as the trustees knew there was property available in the trust for distribution yet declined to timely distribute it to the beneficiaries. Reverses assessment of damages and attorney fees and remands for a re-evaluation of the compensatory damages and a reduction in attorney fees. Judge Baker dissents.

Gary Ludban, et al. v. Ronald Burtch, et al.
44A05-1007-PL-437
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court ruling regarding the survey of land. The survey the Burtches had conducted was not erroneous as a matter of law, the trial court did not err in determining that the fence between the Ludban and Burtch properties establishes the property line, and the trial court did not err in denying the Ludbans’ adverse possession claim to a strip of land used for access to the lake. The trial court did not err in discrediting the survey the Ludbans had done or in implying that Gary Ludban disturbed the original monumentation between lots 29 and 30. The determination of the property line between the Reeds and the Ludbans based on the line of occupation is supported by the evidence.

Kimberly L. Benedict v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1359
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Paternity of K.B.; J.B. v. J.D. (NFP)
02A04-1008-JP-533
Juvenile. Affirms trial court grant of permission to allow mother to relocate to Tennessee with daughter.

Jerry L. Coleman v. Marla J. Coleman (NFP)
38A05-1008-DR-490
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Jerry Coleman’s motion to correct error after the court awarded custody of his son to ex-wife, Marla Coleman, and twice found Jerry in contempt of court.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted seven transfers and denied 34 for the week ending June 24, 2011.

 

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