ILNews

Opinions June 7, 2011

June 7, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael J. Gaby v. State of Indiana
79A02-1006-CR-804
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A felony child molesting and remands for new trial, stating the trial court erred in permitting the state to refresh the victim’s recollection by allowing her to read a previous statement she made. Holds that retrial will not violate double jeopardy grounds because sufficient evidence exists to support conviction.

Uniontown Retail #36, LLC, d/b/a The Lion's Den #36 v. Board of Commissioners of Jackson County
36A01-1008-MI-434
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s order granting motion for summary judgment filed by the Board of Commissioners of Jackson County and permanently enjoining Uniontown Retail, doing business as The Lion’s Den, from operating a sexually oriented business at its current location. The Lion’s Den did not satisfy its burden of demonstrating that the ordinances are constitutionally overbroad.

Patrick Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1009-CR-1031
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

A.R. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A04-1012-JV-786
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication finding A.R. to be delinquent.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of R.L.; C.L. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
05A02-1012-JT-1411
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

Edward L. Weaver v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1009-CR-954
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Owen Cobbum, et al. v. Town of Cromwell (NFP)
57A03-1009-PL-486
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s judgment in favor of the Town of Cromwell.

Joshua Garrard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1101-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft.

Jason Q. Daugherty v. State of Indiana (NFP)
69A05-1011-CR-743
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine.

Phillip Spratt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1006-CR-667
Criminal. Vacates conviction of Class B felony possession of cocaine. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine and revises sentence to two concurrent 30-year sentences.

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