ILNews

Opinions May 10, 2011

May 10, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Damion J. Wilkins v. State of Indiana
02S03-1010-CR-604
Criminal. Affirms trial court denial of motion to suppress. Wilkins is not entitled to suppression of the evidence on his claims of error related to the no-knock entry. Summarily affirms the Indiana Court of Appeals as to his other appellate claims.

Cornelius T. Lacey, Sr. v. State of Indiana
02S05-1010-CR-601
Criminal. Affirms denial of Lacey’s motion to suppress. The police did not have to present known supporting facts and obtain an advance judicial authorization for the no-knock entry. Summarily affirms the Indiana Court of Appeals as to all other issues.

City of Indianapolis, et al. v. Christine Armour, et al.
49S02-1007-CV-402
Civil. Reverses trial court grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs on their federal constitutional claims and remands with instructions to grant judgment for the City of Indianapolis on the plaintiffs’ federal equal protection claim. Holds the City of Indianapolis did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because forgiving only the outstanding assessment balances was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Maria Patricia (Franco) Suarez v. State of Indiana
02A05-1008-PC-508
Post conviction relief petition. Reverses trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s request for a complete record of her guilty plea hearing, including the Spanish language portions of the hearing, stating that under Indiana Administrative Rule 9(D), the guilty plea hearing was a public court record that should be available to Suarez.

State of Indiana v. Charles Black
48A02-1011-CR-1384
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s discharge of Charles Black, who had been charged with drug and other offenses, stating that by agreeing to a new trial date outside the parameters of Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C), Black acquiesced to his trial being delayed and waived his right to be discharged under Criminal Rule 4(C). Remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of H.A. and R.H.; K.H. v. IDCS (NFP)
45A05-1008-JT-550
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

Adoption of E.F.: R.F. and S.F. v. J.N. and K.N. (NFP)
67A01-1009-AD-502
Adoption. Affirms adoption of child by guardians.

Lavonta Henry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1009-CR-599
Criminal. Affirms sentence for four counts Class B felony burglary.

Jeffrey W. Brinkman v. Lisa A. Brinkman (NFP)
32A04-1008-DR-512
Domestic relation. Reverses order obligating Jeffrey Brinkman to pay Lisa Brinkman for the value of his retirement fund. Affirms that the trial court’s miscalculation of son’s 21st birthday was a harmless error and that the trial court did not err when it failed to modify Jeffrey’s child support obligation; the award of prejudgment interest was not an abuse of discretion.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions as of IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Payday loans take advantage of people in many ways. It's great to hear that the courts are using some of their sins to pay money back to the community. Hopefully this will help change the culture of many loan companies, and make lending a much safer endeavor for those in need. http://lawsuitlendingnow.com/lawsuit-loans-post-settlement.html

  2. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  3. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  4. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  5. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

ADVERTISEMENT