ILNews

Opinions May 24, 2012

May 24, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Finance Center Federal Credit Union v. Ronnie D. Brand, Debora J. Brand and GMAC Mortgage, LLC
49A02-1111-MF-1089
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms partial summary judgment in favor of GMAC regarding the priority of the GMAC Mortgage and Finance Center Federal Credit Union mortgages. Equity should not allow the Finance Center to gain an unexpectedly elevated priority because of any negligence of GMAC that did not harm Finance Center.

Samantha Adams v. State of Indiana
49A05-1107-CR-372
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to dismiss. The trial court did not deny Adams due process in denying her motions to dismiss her dealing and possession of marijuana charges. Finds the definition of marijuana is not vague and Indiana Code 35-48-4-11 is not unconstitutional.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.N., C.M., and K.M.; M.M. (Mother) and C.M. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
79A04-1109-JT-541
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Charles Hunter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1111-CR-1000
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of the five-year suspended portion of Hunter’s sentence.

Christopher Master v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A01-1108-CR-361
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felonies rape and criminal deviate conduct.

Darryl Anderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-CR-601
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony rape, Class C felony criminal confinement and Class A misdemeanor battery.

David West v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1111-CR-1013
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following revocation of probation.

Bret Beiler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
38A02-1109-CR-839
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

In Re the Paternity of B.C., M.L. v. D.N., Jr. (NFP)
05A02-1110-JP-964
Juvenile. Reverses decision to set aside paternity affidavit executed by D.C. and N.E. and the May 26, 2009, paternity order.

John W. Mitchell v. American Acceptance Co., LLC, as Assignee of Chase Bank USA, N.A. (NFP)
02A03-1108-CC-366
Civil collection. Affirms grant of summary judgment to American Acceptance Co. on its complaint for collection of credit card debt.

Joshua M. Santiago v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1109-CR-493
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felonies stalking and burglary, Class D felony intimidation, Class A misdemeanors invasion of privacy, battery and resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, and adjudication as a habitual offender.

 

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT