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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT