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. 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