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. 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