ILNews

Opinions March 28, 2012

March 28, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Juan M. Garrett v. State of Indiana
49A04-1107-PC-410
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Because Garrett’s double jeopardy claims are without merit, he was not prejudiced by his trial and direct appeal attorneys’ failure to raise these claims.

Janet Stewart v. Richmond Community Schools
93A02-1108-EX-793
Agency appeal. Affirms final judgment of the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana affirming a single hearing member’s determination of permanent partial impairment. The board’s determination that Stewart was not permanently and totally disabled was a final award subject to appellate review. She didn’t seek appellate review, so she waived any claim of error related to the board’s decision.

Teresa Yates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-823
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

C. Richard Marshall v. Kenneth W. Heider (NFP)
93A02-1106-EX-567
Agency appeal. Reverses order of the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana awarding $6,000 in attorney fees to Heider. Remands to the board with instructions.

Stuart Warren Lacy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1107-CR-686
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony robbery.

Indiana Supreme Court and 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