ILNews

Opinions June 4, 2013

June 4, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
City of Indianapolis v. Rachael Buschman
49S02-1210-CT-598
Civil tort. Affirmed trial court’s grant of summary judgment in Buschman’s favor and remanded the case for further proceedings. Ruled that Buschman’s inclusion of information about her injuries does not restrict the scope of her claim. Although she stated in her claim she did not suffer any injuries from an auto accident involving an Indianapolis police officer, the amended statute governing the Indiana Tort Claims Act does not require a description of injuries. The court concluded when the Legislature amended the statute, it intended to remove any pre-existing requirement of specificity in regards to personal injuries.   

Indiana Court of Appeals
Cesar Chavez v. State of Indiana
49A02-1211-CR-892
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands conviction of five counts of Class C felony child molestation, holding that the five counts were in violation of the continuing crime doctrine and that Chavez committed two chargeable crimes instead of the five for which a jury convicted him. The Court of Appeals instructed the trial court to vacate three of the five convictions.

Matthew J. Bulliner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1211-CR-472
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony and Class A misdemeanor convictions of resisting law enforcement.

Stephen R. Hollingsworth v. State of Indiana (NFP)
26A04-1210-CR-498
Criminal. Affirms in interlocutory appeal denial of motion for discharge for violation of the speedy trial provision under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C).

Mark Bonds v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1212-CR-974
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Charles D. Gilliam v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1210-CR-432
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony conviction of receiving stolen property.

Jason Ulysses Harmon v. United States Steel Corporation f/k/a USX Corporation (NFP)

93A02-1212-EX-1030
Executive administrative/worker’s compensation. Affirms Worker’s Compensation Board’s denial of benefits.

Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions before IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions before 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT