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. 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