ILNews

Opinions Nov. 13, 2012

November 13, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
D.C. v. J.A.C.
32S04-1206-DR-349
Domestic relation/modification of custody. Reverses Court of Appeals ruling that overturned a trial court modification of a custody order in favor of a child’s father. In a case involving a mother who was moving out of state, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred by failing to apply a highly deferential standard of review to the trial court’s determination of a custody modification based on testimony regarding the best interests of the child.

John Haegert v. University of Evansville
82S01-1204-PL-235
Civil Plenary. Affirms trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the university after Haegert filed a complaint alleging defamation, tortuous breach of his employment contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the university failed to meet its burden of proof.  

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kevin Perry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-265
Criminal. Affirms conviction of robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, both Class B felonies, and escape, a Class C felony. Concludes the detective’s opinion was properly admitted as that of a skilled witness, the evidence was sufficient to support Perry’s convictions and the state’s closing argument did not create a fundamental error.

Robin R. Gordon v. Benny B. Gordon (NFP)
92A05-1205-DR-279
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order that mother and father share joint legal custody of minor child.

Joseph Ridge v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1112-CR-1168
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor. The COA found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in either denying Ridge’s request to hire an expert or in allowing Dr. Scott Kriger to hear the testimony of Hamilton County Sheriff’s Deputy Kent Mustain. The COA further concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Kriger’s expert testimony that Ridge was intoxicated on K2 at the time of the traffic stop.
 

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