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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT