ILNews

Opinions March 29, 2011

March 29, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Edward Dawson v. State of Indiana
49S02-1103-CR-176
Criminal. Rules that the Indiana Court of Appeals was correct in declining Edward Dawson’s belated appeal of the trial court’s decision to revoke Dawson’s probation and impose a six-year sentence. States that the COA correctly decided that belated appeals from orders revoking probation are not presently available pursuant to Post-Conviction Rule 2, as the sanction imposed when probation is revoked does not qualify as a “sentence” under the rule, and therefore Dawson is not an “eligible defendant.” Grants transfer and adopts and incorporates by reference the opinion of the Court of Appeals under Appellate Rule 58(A)(1).

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mike Hawa v. Gerald R. Moore
87A01-1007-SC-344
Small claim. Affirms small claims court ruling in favor of a countersuit against property owner Mike Hawa, stating Hawa failed to provide contractor Gerald Moore with adequate assurance that Hawa would pay him for his services. States that small claims court erred by awarding Moore the cost of transporting materials after the lawsuit was filed, saying Moore should have used reasonable diligence to mitigate. Reverses with instructions to reduce Moore’s damage award amount.

Connie Brumley, et al. v. Commonwealth Business College Education Corp. d/b/a Brown Mackie College
45A04-1002-CT-66
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s order compelling arbitration, ruling that the plaintiffs’ actions challenge Brown Mackie’s entire enrollment agreement, not just its arbitration clause. Judge Barnes concurs in a separate opinion.

Ricky D. Whitaker v. Travis M. Becker, et al.
02A03-1006-CT-303
Civil tort. Reverses trial court’s decision to deny Ricky Whitaker’s motion to correct error, stating the court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. Reverses trial court’s decision dismissing the case and awarding $3,700 to Becker’s counsel as reasonable attorney fees for unacceptable conduct. Orders sanction of Whitaker’s counsel with orders to pay $625 in reasonable attorney fees to Becker’s counsel, and remands for further consideration.

Francisco Ponce v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1008-CR-492
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentencing of Francisco Ponce on convictions of two counts of Class B felony aggravated battery, Class C felony battery, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

Eddie J. Williams, Jr. v. State Employees' Appeals Commission (NFP)
49A02-1011-MI-1269
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s dismissal of appellant’s petition for judicial review of a decision by the State Employees’ Appeals Commission.

The 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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT