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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT