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. 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