ILNews

Opinions May 13, 2014

May 13, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
In re Mental Health Actions for A.S., Sara Townsend
10S01-1402-MH-113
Mental health. Reverses finding that Sara Townsend was in indirect civil contempt after completing an application to initiate immediate emergency treatment for her co-worker, A.S. The trial court lacked statutory authority to find her in contempt and her actions did not place her under the trial court’s authority to impose sanctions as an inherent power of the judiciary.

McLynnerd Bond, Jr. v. State of Indiana
45S03-1309-CR-597
Criminal. Reverses denial of Bond’s motion to suppress confession to murder given after a detective implied during an interrogation that he would not receive a fair trial because of his race. This technique went too far in intentionally misleading a suspect as to his constitutionally guaranteed rights to a fair trial and impartial jury because of his race.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Daylene M. (Atchison) Coleman v. Scott A. Atchison
90A02-1311-DR-921
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of incapacity maintenance for Coleman and the equal division of the marital estate. The trial court’s judgment on the division is not supported by its finding. Remands with instructions for the dissolution court to either award her incapacity maintenance or to identify specific extenuating circumstances directly related to the statutory criteria for awarding such maintenance that would justify denying the award. Also instructs the court to award Coleman more than 50 percent of the marital estate consistent with its finding that she has rebutted the presumption of an equal division.

Antonio Beaven v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-CR-811
Criminal. Affirms adjudication as a habitual offender.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT