ILNews

Opinions March 27, 2014

March 27, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana
18S02-1304-CR-297
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B misdemeanor failure to report a student’s rape allegation to DCS or local law enforcement based on the statute that requires a school to report instances of child abuse. The reporting requirement is not unconstitutionally vague and there is sufficient evidence to sustain Smith’s conviction. Justices Rucker and Chief Justice Dickson dissent in a separate opinion.

Front Row Motors, LLC and Jerramy Johnson v. Scott Jones
49S02-1311-PL-758
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of Front Row Motors’ motion to set aside default judgment. The trial court lacked jurisdiction over the dealership at the time the default was entered.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Douglas J. Allison v. Heather Pepkowski
64A05-1311-PO-554
Protective order. Dismisses appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the court’s extension granted a temporary protection order, which is not appealable as of right, Allison was required to seek a discretionary interlocutory appeal, which he did not do.

Bobby Wine v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A05-1307-CR-382
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in a Schedule I, II or III controlled substance.

In the Matter of the Adoption of L.T.: J.M. and S.M. v. C.T. (NFP)
49A05-1310-AD-493
Adoption. Affirms order by Marion Superior Court, Probate Division, terminating the guardianship of L.T. by his maternal grandparents on grounds that Hamilton Superior Court 1 lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over L.T.’s guardianship. Remands for further proceedings, including that the parties immediately place L.T. in her father’s custody.

Ty C. Wilkerson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1307-CR-609
Criminal. Affirms conviction and eight-year sentence for Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury.

Mardel Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1309-CR-377
Criminal. Affirms grant of state’s motion to join charges under two separate cause numbers for trial.

Austin M. Scholl v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1309-CR-801
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and Class D felony sexual battery.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions 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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT