ILNews

Opinions - May 25, 2010

May 25, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court

Desmond Davidson v. State of Indiana
49S02-1001-CR-41
Criminal. Affirms trial court and agrees with Court of Appeals. Finds that upon the review of sentence appropriateness under Appellate Rule 7, appellate courts may consider all aspects of the penal consequences imposed by the trial judge in sentencing the defendant. Disapproves of the contrary views expressed in Eaton, 825 N.E.2d at 1290–91; Pagan, 809 N.E.2d at 926; and Cox, 792 N.E.2d at 904.

Indiana Family and Social Services Administration v. Alice V. Meyer, et al.
69S01-0905-CV-233
Civil. Unanimously holds the trial court has no authority to grant a motion for an extension of time to file the record if the motion is filed after the time for filing the record and any previous extensions have expired. Supreme Court is divided as to whether a case may go forward where a full record of proceedings has not been filed. The Court of Appeals decision therefore remains in place and the trial court‘s order remanding this case to FSSA is affirmed.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Susan Kozlowski v. Lake County Plan Commission, Dordija Dordieski, Lana Dordieski, Jon Bruskoski, and Liberty Bruskoski
45A03-0909-CV-430
Civil. Affirms denial of Kozlowski’s motion for summary judgment regarding her claims against the Dordieskis and the Bruskoskis and the Lake County Plan Commission. Grants the request of the Dordieskis and the Bruskoskis for appellate fees, and remands for a determination of reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees.

Cynthia VanTreese v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-PC-1271
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of VanTreese’s petition for post-conviction relief, which challenged her 1981 conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana or hashish.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of H.J.F.; S.S.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
71A03-1002-JT-68
Juvenile. Affirms probate court’s order involuntarily terminating S.S.W. (mother)’s parental rights to H.J.F.

Timothy Bitter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-0908-CR-382
Criminal. Reverses and remands Bitter’s conviction of and sentence for child molesting as a Class C felony.

Mitchell L. King v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-0911-CR-505
Criminal. Affirms King’s conviction by jury of theft as a Class D felony.

Richard Saunders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-0911-CR-554
Criminal. Affirms Saunders’ conviction of dealing in a schedule II controlled substance, a Class A felony.

Juan Beasley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-CR-1019
Criminal. Affirms Beasley’s conviction of two counts of robbery as Class B felonies.

Nelisa Glover v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0911-CR-620
Criminal. Affirms Glover’s conviction of Class A misdemeanor prostitution.

B.G. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Celadon Trucking Services Inc. (NFP)
93A02-0910-EX-1030
Administrative. Affirms decision of the Unemployment Insurance Review Board to affirm the dismissal of B.G.’s appeal from the denial of unemployment benefits for failure to appear for a telephonic, evidentiary hearing.

David Smith v. First Farm Mutual Insurance Co. (NFP)
36A01-0912-CV-574
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of First Farm Mutual Insurance Company on Smith’s claim for breach of insurance contract.

Steven Scott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-CR-1048
Criminal. Affirms Scott’s conviction of battery as a Class A misdemeanor.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT