ILNews

Opinions March 6, 2012

March 6, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court

Mark J. Thatcher v. City of Kokomo, et al.
94S00-1109-CQ-570
Certified question. Indiana Code 36-8-4-7(a) applies to a member of the 1977 Fund who is receiving disability benefits and who has been determined to have been recovered pursuant to 35 Indiana Administrative Code 2-5-5(c). And the time period during which a person receives disability benefits under Indiana Code 36-8-8-12(e) does not count toward “years of service” as that term is used in Indiana Code 36-8-4-7(a).

Indiana Court of Appeals
CBR Event Decorators, Inc., Gregory Rankin, Robert Cochrane and John Bales v. Todd M. Gates
49A02-1010-CT-1117
Civil tort. The trial court erred in piercing the corporate veil because Gates failed to establish a causal connection between misuse of the corporate form and fraud or injustice. Affirms judgment against CBR for breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, fraudulent transfer, and wrongful stop payment. Remands for a determination of the portion of attorney fees the shareholders are liable for to Gates as a result of the wrongful stop payment.

John Shocke v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1107-CR-366
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Jamika J. Talley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1107-CR-407
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor conversion.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of M.B. v. Wishard Health Services Midtown Community Mental Health Center (NFP)
49A02-1106-MH-505
Mental health. Affirms involuntary commitment.

Larry Parks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-706
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended.

Darrick Scott and Paul A. Watson v. City of Terre Haute, et al. (NFP)

84A01-1108-PL-337
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Terre Haute and other city actors on Scott and Watson’s civil complaint alleging that the appointment of 10 firefighters to the position of battalion chief was illegal and circumvented the merit system.

David A. Bowe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A01-1108-CR-375
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

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