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

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT