ILNews

Opinions May 13, 2011

May 13, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Melody D. Linenburg v. Mark A. Linenburg
82A01-1011-DR-625
Domestic relation. Affirms provisional order awarding father primary physical custody of the children and possession of the marital residence during the pendency of the dissolution proceeding. The mother failed to establish an abuse of discretion and the court declines to reweigh the evidence.

Raymond Shook v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1007-PC-461
Post conviction. Affirms denial of motion to remove Shook’s status as a sexually violent predator.

Julio Azpeitia v. State of Indiana (NFP)

09A05-1012-CR-796
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Michael Yang v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1006-CR-351
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for felony murder and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Steven Foernzler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-827
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony attempted murder and Class D felony residential entry.

Reginald N. Person, Jr., et al. v. Carol A. Shipley (NFP)
20A03-1008-CT-463
Civil tort. Reverses jury verdict in favor of Shipley and remands for further proceedings.

Michael Hale v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A05-1010-PC-697
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT