Opinions June 7, 2011

June 7, 2011
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
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
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

A.R. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

Edward L. Weaver v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

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

Joshua Garrard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft.

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

Phillip Spratt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?