ILNews

Opinions May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Allison Riggle v. State of Indiana
49A05-1109-CR-472
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The traffic stop was invalid because Riggle did not commit a traffic violation. Remands with instructions to vacate her conviction.

Latisha Lawson v. State of Indiana
02A03-1107-CR-350
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder, Class C felony neglect of a dependent, Class D felony neglect of a dependent and Class D felony battery. There is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s rejection of Lawson’s insanity defense.

Thomas A. Neu and Elizabeth A. Neu, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Brett Gibson
49A02-1109-MF-842
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses denial of the Neus’ motion for relief from judgment and their request for attorney fees following Gibson’s full credit bid during a sheriff’s sale of real property located in Michigan. Remands with instructions to award the Neus reasonable attorney fees in litigating this action since August 2007.

Larry R. Busche, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1108-CR-418
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony rape.

Raymond H. Mims v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1109-CR-499
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony forgery.

Sharon D. Collins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1109-CR-490
Criminal. Affirms imposition of consecutive sentences for Collins’ four Class B felony arson convictions, but remands with instructions to resentence her because the arson sentences violate the statutory maximum for felony convictions arising out of an episode of criminal conduct.

Gary W. Ferguson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A05-1108-CR-434
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug.

Seth T. Lipscomb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1109-CR-443
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class D felony theft.

In Re the Estate of Nancy Jean McMillen, Donna McMillen v. Thomas Kane (NFP)
71A03-1107-ES-324
Estate, supervised. Affirms denial of Donna McMillen’s petition in which she sought to remove Kane as the personal representative of the estate and as trustee of a trust established by Nancy McMillen’s will, of which Donna McMillen was the named beneficiary.

Michael West v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1108-PC-451
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Russell W. Yerden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-PC-1010
Post conviction. Affirms in part and reverses in part denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Remands for correction of Yerden’s sentence.

 

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT