ILNews

Opinions Nov. 14, 2012

November 14, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Fox v. Nichter Construction Co., Inc.
03A01-1202-SC-52
Small claims/wages. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands in part the dismissal of Fox’s wage claim with prejudice and orders the court to enter a dismissal of the claim with prejudice. A divided appeals court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Fox had pursued his claim through the Department of Labor under the Wage Claim statute before filing suit. The appeals court ordered the trial court to dismiss the case without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, including the failure to name the real party in interest. Fox may refile his claim setting forth the reassignment by the Department of Labor.

Clinton Couch v. State of Indiana
48A04-1204-CR-181
Criminal. Affirms the trial court’s judgment in imposing a 91-year sentence for a child molester. Couch argued the trial court circumvented his plea agreement by considering his uncharged conduct an aggravating circumstance that led to the enhanced and consecutive sentences. However, the COA ruled the trial court did not find the testimony of two other alleged victims about Couch’s uncharged conduct to be an aggravating circumstance.  

 

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