ILNews

Opinions June 5, 2012

June 5, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Tax Court and Indiana Supreme Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Kevin C. O'Connell v. State of Indiana
18A02-1109-CR-889
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s decision to refuse O’Connell’s tendered jury instructions that the word “voluntary” be included with each of his charges. Holds that other instructions covered the substance of the tendered instructions.

James Ripps v. State of Indiana
15A01-1109-CR-436
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s revocation of Ripps’ probation, holding that several factors – including Ripps’ age, health and his efforts to comply with terms of his probation – indicate the court abused its discretion in issuing its order.

Bennie Chamberlain v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1108-CR-770
Criminal. Reverses sentences for Class C felony stalking, Class C felony criminal confinement and Class D felony residential entry, holding the crimes were part of a single episode of criminal conduct and the consecutive sentences exceeded the maximum allowable time under Indiana Code. Remands for resentencing, including attachment of habitual offender enhancement.  

Milan D. Zavodny, Trustee of the Milan D. Zavodny Trust v. Evelyn Ann Pavilionis Trust U/W/A, Dated 18 March 1997 (NFP)
75A03-1110-PL-458
Civil plenary. Holds trial court erred in awarding $43,000 in damages to Pavilionis and therefore reverses and remands for a determination of actual damages, if any, and a determination of whether prejudgment interest should be awarded. Affirms trial court’s denial of Zavodny’s request for a continuance.

Performance Matters Associates and Conseco Marketing, LLC v. Patrick A. Fortune (NFP)
29A05-1107-PL-361
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of Fortune.

In the Matter of the Paternity of N.M.E., Minor Child; J.E.E., Father v. J.B., Mother (NFP)
71A03-1112-JP-549
Juvenile. Reverses juvenile court’s order that father’s parenting time with daughter is to be supervised, holding the court made no finding of physical endangerment or emotional impairment. Remands for court to enter findings or remove restrictions on parenting time.

Mark Shepard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1108-CR-415
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class C felony conspiracy to commit robbery and felony murder.
 

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