ILNews

Opinions June 3, 2011

June 3, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Maetta Vance v. Ball State University, et al.
08-3568
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s summary judgment for the defendants and dismissal of discrimination lawsuit, stating the plaintiff failed to prove that her treatment at work was in any way affected by her race, and that the plaintiff did not prove that Ball State University was negligent in taking steps to remediate reported harassment.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
J.H. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1005-JV-560
Juvenile. Reverses and remands with instructions to vacate restitution order. Holds that the juvenile court failed to recognize the state must prove validity of damage estimates and that the court did not adequately investigate J.H.’s ability to pay.

Nicholas Mills v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1012-CR-741
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molestation.

John Warren v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1009-CR-997
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor criminal recklessness. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended within ten years of a similar prior infraction and remands with instructions to amend by vacating Class A misdemeanor conviction and entering Class A infraction in its place.

Timmy Todd Zieman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1005-CR-230
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder.

Bryan Ward v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-CR-1250
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

C.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-JV-1314
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for an act that would be child molesting if committed by an adult

Robert J. Boswell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-CR-1231
Criminal. Affirms 30-year sentence for Class A voluntary manslaughter.

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