ILNews

Opinions March 22, 2013

March 22, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
F.G. v. B.G. (NFP)
49A05-1210-DR-506
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s denial of father F.G.’s motion to set aside decree establishing paternity and for DNA testing regarding paternity of one of his children.

C.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1209-JV-757
Juvenile. Affirms finding of indirect contempt of court.

Gail Eisenhut v. Richard Eisenhut, M.D. (NFP)
49A02-1208-DR-633
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court judgment ordering Gail Eisenhut to repay Richard Eisenhut $19,250, holding there is no evidence that his overpayment of child support was anything but voluntary and gratuitous.

Lisa M. Rooker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1206-CR-492
Criminal. Affirms three-year sentence for Class D felony conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Roudy Joe Beasley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A05-1209-CR-461
Criminal. Affirms revocation of home detention.

John Mwangi v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1208-CR-647
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony intimidation and theft.

Rex L. Kast v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1205-CR-211
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three Class D felony counts of possession of controlled substances.

Andrew J.P. Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1209-CR-451
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Thomas Albert Overton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1206-CR-530
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting.

Daimon Culpepper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1209-CR-724
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony robbery.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by 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