ILNews

Opinions March 25, 2011

March 25, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
William Hurt v. State of Indiana
82A04-1006-CR-414
Criminal. Affirms Hurt’s conviction of Class C felony reckless disregard of a traffic control device in a highway workzone resulting in death, ruling that Hurt had seen the traffic controls repeatedly on his several trips through the workzone, prior to the fatal crash. Reverses Hurt’s conviction for Class C felony reckless operation of a vehicle in a highway workzone resulting in death, on double jeopardy grounds.

Timothy D. Sexton v. Donna M. (Sexton) Sedlak
49A04-1005-DR-330
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s decision to deny retroactive modification of father’s child support obligation prior to the filing date of his petition to modify, ruling the trial court did not abuse its discretion in choosing June 12, 2009, as the effective date for modification. Affirms trial court’s decision denying father’s petition for emancipation. Reverses trial court’s child support obligation of $117 per week and remands with instructiosn to determine Sexton's support obligation in light of child T.S.'s income. Judge Kirsch dissents.

Brian Calaway v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-CR-953
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.M.; B.M. v. IDCS (NFP)
32A01-1008-JT-455
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms order terminating father’s parental rights.

Douglas (Sommers) Summers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1007-CR-876
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony sexual battery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of S.W.; C.W. v. IDCS (NFP)
49A02-1007-JT-913
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms juvenile court’s order terminating mother’s parental rights.

Bronco L. Morgan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1008-CR-577
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony attempted murder.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT