ILNews

Opinions - May 26, 2010

May 27, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Tracey Wallace and Eric Wallace v. Jonathan S. McGlothan
07-4059
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney
Civil. Affirms jury verdict in favor of and damages in the amount of $700,000 to the Wallaces following their diversity suit against Dr. McGlothan. The Wallaces sued Dr. McGlothan for medical malpractice following surgery he performed on Tracey Wallace to correct her vision problems. The procedure ended up causing more harm than good.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Donald T. Shell v. State of Indiana
48A02-0904-CR-325
Criminal. Affirms Shell’s convictions of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Class D felony possession of marijuana, Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance, and two counts of Class D felony possession of a controlled substance. Also affirms sentenced of an aggregate term of 18 years.

Julie Smitson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-0911-CR-660
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Smitson’s probation.

Ricky L. Rust v. State of Indiana (NFP)
80A04-0907-CR-428
Criminal. Affirms Rust’s convictions of and sentences for Class D felony criminal recklessness, Class C felony battery, and Class B felony criminal confinement.

Lawrence Echols v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0908-CR-752
Criminal. Affirms Echols’ convictions of and sentences for Class D felony intimidation, and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Janyer Pinto v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-0908-CR-427
Criminal. Affirms Pinto’s convictions of and sentences for Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Salvador A. Perez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1001-CR-35
Criminal. Affirms Perez’ conviction of and sentence for failure to register as a sex offender, a Class D felony.

John Pemberton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0910-CR-1054
Criminal. Affirms Pemberton’s conviction of child molesting, a Class A felony.

Edgar Mendizabal v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0909-PC-899
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of Mendizabal’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Russell Ralston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0909-CR-929
Criminal. Affirms Ralston’s conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery. Reverses trial court’s order for Ralston to pay the public defender fee without determining his ability to pay and remands.

Marcos Espinosa v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1002-CR-67
Criminal. Affirms Espinosa’s conviction of and sentence for Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor following his guilty plea.

Erick George Black v. Marcy Ann Black (NFP)
37A04-0909-CV-552
Civil. Reverses and remand’s trial court’s order that reduced father Erick George Black’s child support obligation, but did not modify the tax exemptions for the dependent children. Father argued he should owe no child support because he is the custodial parent, and that he should receive the tax exemptions for both children.

Anthony E. Griffin Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-0912-CR-575
Criminal. Affirms Griffin’s conviction of rape, a Class B felony.

Adoption of T.L.J.; R.O. v. C.J. (NFP)
71A05-0912-CV-691
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of a petition to adopt T.L.J. filed by C.J. (stepmother). R.O. (mother) had appealed.

Matter of L.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-JV-1119
Juvenile. Affirms L.W.’s adjudication as a delinquent child for committing resisting law enforcement, which would be a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

State of Indiana v. Patrick J. Davis (NFP)
02A05-1001-CR-7
Criminal. Reverses and remands trial court’s order dismissing the state’s petition to revoke Davis’ probation. Finds it need not be established that the defendant was explicitly advised that he is prohibited from committing new offenses while on probation.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions before IL deadline.

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. 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