ILNews

Opinions March 13, 2013

March 13, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Kelly S. Thomas v. Dushan Zatecky, superintendent, Pendleton Correctional Facility
13-1136
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Denies Thomas’ request that he be allowed collateral relief to file appeals without regard to the fees required by Section 1913 and the resolutions of the Judicial Conference. Gives Thomas 21 days to file in the 7th Circuit a motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis and a certificate of appealability. Failure to meet this schedule will result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Indiana Supreme Court
Brandy L. Walczak, Individually and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated v. Labor Works - Fort Wayne LLC, d/b/a Labor Works
02S04-1208-PL-497
Civil plenary. Concludes that Walczak had a reasonable expectation of continuing to receive job assignments from Labor Works on the day she filed her claim, and holds that she was not separated from the payroll for the purpose of the Wage Claims Act and may proceed with her claims as she filed it under the Wage Payment Act.

Indiana Court of Appeals
N.O. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A03-1209-JV-409
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class B misdemeanor battery if committed by an adult.

Michael A. Combs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1209-CR-393
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for three counts of Class B felony neglect of a dependent, Class A felony child molesting and Class D felony battery.

Troy Farris v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A04-1207-CR-372
Criminal. Affirms 180-day sentence imposed following probation violation.

Sedrick J. Grandberry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1209-CR-410
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony criminal trespass.

Tyler Becker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1203-CR-124
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated.

Joshua D. Huff v. State of Indiana (NFP)

06A01-1208-CR-396
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Benjamin Mentink v. Karen Downing (NFP)

45A03-1207-PO-332
Protective order. Affirms issuance of protective order against Mentink.

Victoria Anderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1207-CR-603
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.

J.A.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1210-JV-541
Juvenile. Affirms order committing J.A.H. to the Indiana Department of Correction.

Lavern Baltimore v. State of Indiana (NFP)

22A04-1112-PC-652
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands for further proceedings.

Bruce Anderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A05-1209-CR-482
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury.

Pat Fleming and Bob Steffan d/b/a Dr. Bob's RV Service v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. and Gemb Lending, Inc. (NFP)
45A03-1206-PL-249
Civil plenary. Reverses dismissal of complaint to foreclose upon mechanic’s liens and remands for additional proceedings.

The Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions prior to 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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT