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

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