ILNews

Opinions Nov. 14, 2013

November 14, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Darliss Wert and Gary Wert v. Meridian Security Insurance Company
15A01-1306-CT-252
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the insurance company on the Werts’ underinsured-motorist claim. Provisions in the insurance contract, when read together, make it unclear when the Werts should have filed a lawsuit to preserve their claim and may completely foreclose their ability to file a lawsuit.

The Novogroder Companies, Inc., v. Michael J. Massaro

45A03-1303-PL-98
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of injunctive relief to Novogroder Companies on its efforts to enjoin Massaro from cooking foods at the leased premises. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant preliminary injunctive relief to abate a nuisance.  

Donald Warren v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1301-CR-16
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies burglary and conspiracy to commit burglary.

Christopher Roberts v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1304-CR-199
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of G.H., (Minor Child) and D.H.(Father) v. Marion County Department of Child Services, Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)

49A02-1303-JT-284
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In Re the Matter of D.H., J.H., A.H., N.H., P.H., S.H., D.H., J.H., and D.H.; Children Alleged to be Children in Need of Services, T.H. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1304-JC-334
Juvenile. Affirms determination the children are children in need of services.

Louis Shepherd, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A01-1304-CR-169
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and sentence. Remands with instructions to correct the judgment of conviction such that it does not reflect a conviction on the Class D felony criminal confinement charge due to double jeopardy issues.  

Randy Terrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A04-1303-CR-147
Criminal. Affirms sentence following convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, two counts of Class B felony burglary, and Class D felonies possession of chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, maintaining a common nuisance and two counts of theft.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by 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. 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