ILNews

Opinions March 8, 2011

March 8, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Lisa Gray v. State of Indiana
82A01-1005-CR-223
Criminal. Reverses Gray’s conviction of possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor. She contended there was insufficient evidence that she constructively possessed the marijuana. Judge Cale Bradford dissents, writing that Gray was in close proximity to the marijuana and that it was in plain view, as officers had testified at trial.

Anderson Property Management LLC v. H. Anthony Miller, Jr. LLC.
43A03-1003-PL-239
Civil. Reverses trial court’s holding that the mediated agreement is enforceable and the trial court’s order that the parties execute and record the amendment to negative easement and perform their respective obligations of the mediated agreement. Also vacates trial court’s order that each party shall pay its own attorneys fees and instructs the trial court to consider this issue when it enters final judgment in this proceeding. Remands with instructions.

Mark Lesh v. Richard Chandler and Marilyn Chandler
44A05-1003-PL-197
Civil. Affirms trial court’s conclusion Lesh’s actions amounted to a private nuisance. Reverses trial court’s decision to extend the protective order dated April 26, 2006, because the proceedings on which that order was based were dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of the parties on Sept. 28, 2006. As the protective order was not in effect after Sept. 28, 2006, the finding that Lesh violated its terms is reversed. Remands for redaction of the language in Judgment Items C and G regarding the protective order. Also affirms the permanent injunction entered against Lesh, the contempt finding against Lesh, and the damages awarded in favor of the Chandlers.

Anna Quimby v. Becovic Management Group, Inc.
49A05-0912-CV-747
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Quimby’s wage claim against Becovic Management Group. She had assigned that claim to the Department of Labor, where it was resolved. Claimants who proceed under the Wage Claim statute submit their claim to the DOL rather than filing a complaint with the trial court. Immediately above her signature, the form filed with the DOL stated, “Pursuant to IC 22-2-9-5, I hereby assign to the Commissioner of Labor all my rights, title and interest in and to the above certified claim for processing in accordance with the provisions of IC 22-2-9-1, et seq.”

In the Matter of J.C., Alleged to be CHINS; K.M. and J.C. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1007-JC-878
Juvenile. Affirms CHINS determination and remands for corrections to juvenile court’s orders that improperly reflect that J.C. was removed from the home during the underlying proceedings.

Robert D. Baxton, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1006-CR-294
Criminal. Affirms conviction of robbery as a Class B felony.

Joseph M. Ferry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-379
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion.

Glen Leroy Rusher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1006-CR-656
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

A.G. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1007-JV-450
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for receiving stolen property, which would be a Class D felony if committed by an adult; and criminal trespass, which would be a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

Town of Highland and Highland Sanitary District v. Lee Lieberman, et al. (NFP)
45A05-1003-CT-178
Civil. Affirms denial of motion for summary judgment by Town of Highland and the Highland Sanitary District, and remands for trial.

Anthony Scott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-810
Criminal. Affirms Scott’s conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Vincent Demus v. State of Indiana (NFP)
66A03-1008-CR-442
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of marijuana, Class D felony resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor reckless driving, and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle with a controlled substance in his body.

Mark Kennedy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1005-CR-265
Criminal. Affirms convictions of attempted murder, a Class A felony; and carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor. Also affirms adjudication that found him to be a habitual offender.

L.H. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, et al. (NFP)
93A02-1003-EX-327
Civil. Affirms decision of the review board to deny L.H.’s unemployment benefits.

Devon Walton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A05-1007-CR-483
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement by fleeing.

Willie J. Herman, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1006-CR-359
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony possession of marijuana.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT