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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT