ILNews

Opinions May 14, 2014

May 14, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
State of Indiana v. Tammy Sue Harper
79S02-1405-CR-334
Criminal. Affirms grant of Harper’s motion for a sentence modification sought more than 365 days after she was originally sentenced. The prosecutor’s conduct and communications adequately conveyed the “approval of the prosecuting attorney” required in I.C. 35-38-1-17(b).

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kenneth B. Hutslar v. State of Indiana (NFP)
38A02-1310-CR-877
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of a cellular telephone or device while incarcerated.

Wachovia Bank N.A., as Trustee for the Registered Holders of GSRPM 2004-1 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates v. Yevonne Corpening a/k/a Yevonne R. Corpening; Sovereign Bank, et. al. (NFP)

49A04-1308-MF-397
Mortgage foreclosure.  Reverses trial court judgment that determined Wachovia is not an equitable assignee of a mortgage despite the fact the bank held a note corresponding to the mortgage.

In re the Matter of the Guardianship and Estate of Jay Carver, an adult v. Margaret Ditteon (NFP)
84A01-1309-GU-409
Guardianship. Affirms denial of Carver’s request that the guardianship be terminated or a different guardian be appointed.

Richard A. Perkey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1303-CR-77
Criminal. Grants rehearing to address claims of prosecutorial misconduct and affirms Perkey’s Class B felony rape conviction.

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

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