ILNews

Opinions May 16, 2012

May 16, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Robert A. Turner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
62A01-1111-CR-514
Criminal. Affirms imposition of public defender fee.

In Re: Vinod C. Gupta Tax Deed; Rahman Irrevocable Trust v. Vinod C. Gupta and Bank D, LLC a/k/a Bruce Denni, and Ripley County Treasurer (NFP)
69A05-1105-MI-294
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of two motions by the Rahman Irrevocable Trust for relief from the judgment pertaining to the issuance of tax deeds.

In Re the Marriage of: Am.C. v. D.C. (NFP)
30A05-1109-DR-456
Domestic relation. Affirms order related to the custody and support of the parties’ children. Remands with instructions to revise the order to correctly reflect the name of the school the children attend.

Lowell Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1109-CR-481
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Michael Wayne Glock, David Nixon Glock, and Daniel Colin Glock v. Sheila C. Hale (NFP)
89A01-1109-PL-441
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Hale finding she was entitled to the proceeds from an annuity.

Sterling Mitchell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1108-CR-425
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Claudio Igor Gonzalez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1110-CR-549
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony aggravated battery.  

Lisa Martin v. American Senior Communities, LLC (NFP)
49A02-1112-PL-1117
Civil plenary. Reverses grant of summary judgment for American Senior Communities in an action seeking reimbursement for paid vacation time and remands for further proceedings.

Timothy Ware v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1109-CR-495
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and carrying a handgun without a license as a Class A misdemeanor.

Johnnie Gipson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1109-CR-435
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Class C felony child exploitation.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of N.Q., Je.Q., Ja.Q., and L.Q.; and T.Q. and A.Q. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
82A05-1109-JT-511
Juvenile. Reverses termination of parental rights and remands for further proceedings.

Timothy T. Brooks v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1109-CR-858
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony performing sexual misconduct in the presence of a minor.

Donald B. Hall v. Beverly J. Hall (NFP)
02A03-1109-DR-479
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 60(B).
 

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