ILNews

Opinions June 6, 2012

June 6, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Keith D. Jackson v. State of Indiana
20A03-1105-CR-222
Criminal. Reverses sentence for possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and remands for resentencing, holding the trial court erred by imposing a suspended sentence of four years contrary to the accepted plea agreement.

W.D., a minor by his parents R.D. and S.D., and R.D. and S.D., individually v. City of Nappanee
20A05-1112-CT-698
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s summary judgment in favor of city of Nappanee, holding that there was no breach of duty of care on the city’s part when a child was found floating face-down in a public pool and rescued by lifeguards who resuscitated him.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.W., K.K., Ke.K., & L.W.; and J.K. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
85A05-1109-JT-591
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s termination of father’s parental rights to his four minor children, holding that the trial court’s findings supported the conclusion that the conditions causing the children’s removal from their father’s home will not be remedied.

Teri Woenkhaus v. David Woenkhaus (NFP)
34A02-1111-DR-1041
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s property division order in dissolution of marriage, but remands for the court to award the parties’ income tax refunds to the wife.

Eric Liscomb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-715
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for felony murder, Class B felony robbery, Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license and Class C felony conspiracy to commit robbery.

Robert Johnson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-712
Criminal. Affirms convictions of felony murder and Class B felony robbery.

M. Loren Fugate v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1110-CR-529
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and home detention and the order that Fugate serve the remainder of his sentence in the Department of Correction.

Frank E. Puzynski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1111-CR-590
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life.

Jermaine Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1109-PC-881
Post conviction. Remands with instructions to vacate Young’s conviction of Class C felony possession of cocaine, holding that his attorney’s failure to raise the issue of double jeopardy constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Affirms the court in all other respects.

Mark Van Eaton and Cynthia Van Eaton Vallimont v. German American Bancorp (NFP)
42A01-1108-MF-434
Mortgage foreclosure. Remands for the court to amend receivership order.

Faye E. Warfield v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and IDWD U.I. Claims Adjudication (NFP)
93A02-1110-EX-915
Miscellaneous. Affirms Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board’s dismissal of Warfield’s appeal.

 

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT