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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT