Opinions - May 25, 2010

May 25, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court

Desmond Davidson v. State of Indiana
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms King’s conviction by jury of theft as a Class D felony.

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

Juan Beasley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms Beasley’s conviction of two counts of robbery as Class B felonies.

Nelisa Glover v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms Scott’s conviction of battery as a Class A misdemeanor.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit