ILNews

Opinions March 17, 2011

March 17, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
C.G. LLC v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Devel., et al.
93A02-1004-EX-441
Civil. Reverses and remands decision by Appellee Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development that determined appellees/employees T.A., et al. were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.

Deago Tyree Hooper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A01-1005-CR-221
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

Nicole Cooper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1004-CR-507
Criminal. Affirms three-year sentence following conviction of unlawful possession of a syringe, a Class D felony.

Heather Lace v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1008-CR-521
Criminal. Affirms sentence of 40 years for Class A felony possession of methamphetamine in excess of 3 grams with intent to deliver.

James Freels v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (NFP)
93A02-1007-EX-761
Civil. Affirms Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board’s dismissal of Freels’ Occupational Disease Act claim against his employer Bethlehem Steel Corporation.

John R. Willard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1009-PC-565
Post conviction. Vacates Willard’s conviction of Class A felony attempted child molesting and remands for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Raymond K. Haley v. Dalana K. Haley (NFP)
32A04-1009-DR-541
Domestic relations. Reverses trial court’s grant of the motion of appellee-respondent Dalana Haley for relief from judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(8).

Jonathon Garrett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-798
Criminal. Vacates and remands with instructions Garrett’s sentence for Class D felony criminal confinement.

T.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1008-JV-527
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of T.M. as a juvenile delinquent for committing acts that would be burglary, attempted theft, and criminal mischief if committed by an adult.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT