ILNews

Opinions June 8, 2012

June 8, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Kenneth Harper v. C.R. England, Incorporated
11-2975
U. S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s determination that Harper failed to set forth a prima facie case, under either the direct or indirect method of proof, to support his claim that C.R. England had retaliated against him for reporting what he believed to be unlawful racial discrimination. Holds that his record shows excessive absences were the cause for his termination.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael A. Gargano, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, et al. v. Lee Alan Bryant Health Care Facilities, Inc., et al.
49A02-1105-PL-449
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s determination that the Family and Social Services Administration had acted unlawfully in refusing to accept applications for Residential Care Assistance Program funds after Dec. 1, 2009, holding that the agency had acted within its power to meet budget constraints. Also reverses trial court’s finding that reimbursement rates were unlawful and remands for further proceedings.

Tricia L. Sexton v. Travis Sexton
34A02-1111-DR-1059
Domestic relation. Affirms the trial court’s order of emancipation of a daughter, holding that the daughter put herself outside the care or control of her parents and was self-supporting, and that the trial court did not err in determining that she was emancipated.

Betwel Birari v. State of Indiana
49A02-1111-CR-1009
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s conviction of attempted rape as a class B felony, finding evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction and that a prosecutor’s comments did not result in fundamental error.

Kent A. Easley v. State of Indiana, Shelby County Prosecutor's Office, R. Kent Apsley, J. Brad Landwerlen, Shelby Co. Probation Dept., Deanna Holder, Shelby Co. Superior Ct One Clerk, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1109-CT-975
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s order dismissing Easley’s motion for default judgment.

William A. Wiley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1111-CR-1072
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony robbery, Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Michael Kucholick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A02-1109-CR-907
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony criminal recklessness and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief but reduces sentence to advisory standard of four years, with two years suspended to probation and two years to be executed in community corrections. Judge Edward Najam concurred in part and dissented in part.

Blake Clunie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1109-PC-458
Post conviction. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to correct error in Clunie’s erroneous filing of his petition for post-conviction relief, which was filed under the original cause number instead of the post-conviction cause number.
 

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