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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT