ILNews

Opinions March 19, 2012

March 19, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
Jimmie E. Jones, Jr. v. State of Indiana
29S02-1108-CR-511
Criminal. Adopts Court of Appeals opinion in full, which affirmed the refusal by the trial court to give Jones’ tendered instructions on reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter as lesser-included offenses to the murder charge. The evidence didn’t support a reckless homicide instruction and the charging information for the murder count foreclosed an involuntary manslaughter instruction.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re the Paternity of C.S.: M.R. (Mother) v. R.S. (Father)
53A01-1108-JP-381
Juvenile. Affirms order granting a petition for modification of custody filed by father. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that C.S.’s physical and mental/academic maturation constituted a substantial change warranting modification of custody. The trial court did not misinterpret Indiana Code 31-17-2-8 in the process of drawing conclusions from its findings, nor did it err in relying on the updated custody evaluation.

Robert Hardin v. Carlotta Hardin
18A05-1105-DR-301
Domestic relation. Reverses and remands as to the trial court’s division of Robert Hardin’s pension, including the cost to Carlotta Hardin of the survivor’s benefit. Affirms as to all other issues. The trial court used an incorrect coverture fraction and erred in dividing the pension.

Charles L. Eckard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1108-CR-382
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony battery.

Juan Emerson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1102-PC-95
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Kelly Scott Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1111-PC-651
Post conviction. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw petition for post-conviction relief and denial of that petition.

T.N.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-1105-JV-263
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for committing what would be sexual battery if committed by an adult.

Mark Wiley v. Midwest Poultry Services, LP (NFP)
93A02-1107-EX-593
Agency appeal. The full board of the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana erred in denying Wiley’s claim for the reimbursement of costs associated with his wheelchair because the undisputed evidence reveals his impairment is reduced by having a working motorized wheelchair and the parties’ agreement did not waive this claim. Further, based on a plain reading of the agreement, the board did not err in awarding Wiley reimbursement for the cost of repairing the chair lift added to his pick-up truck. Remands to the full board to enter an amended order consistent with this opinion.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT