ILNews

Opinions Nov. 15, 2011

November 15, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Jesse Puckett v. State of Indiana
90A02-1104-CR-369
Criminal. Reverses sentencing decision that required Puckett to serve his entire previously suspended four-year sentence after Puckett admitted to violating his probation for Class C felony child molesting. The trial judge’s statement of reasons for the sentence is problematic. Holds it is improper when revoking probation for a trial court to find that the defendant actually committed a more serious crime than the one or ones of which he or she was originally convicted. Remands for another hearing regarding the revocation of probation.

Clayter Hale v. SS Liquors, Inc., and Safe Step, Inc.
73A01-1104-CT-179
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for SS Liquors and Safe Step Inc. on Hale’s personal injury negligence action. Declines to say that slipping and falling in a bathtub while taking a shower is something that does not happen “in the ordinary course of things.” There is no evidence that the bathtub at the time of Hale’s fall was unreasonably safe.

David R. Camm v. State of Indiana
87A01-1102-CR-25
Criminal. Reverses denial of Camm’s petition for appointment of a special prosecutor. Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson’s cancelled literary contract created an irreversible, actual conflict of interest with his duty to the people of the state of Indiana. Remands for appointment of a special prosecutor and for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of J.K., J.G. v. A.K. (NFP)
66A03-1005-JP-345
Juvenile. Affirms order denying father J.G.’s motion to terminate grandmother A.K.’s temporary guardianship of his daughter J.K. and the order granting A.K.’s petition for permanent guardianship over the daughter.

Roland Devoe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1104-CR-312
Criminal. Affirms decision to join two causes against Devoe.

Gregory Brooks, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1012-CR-766
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of murder in perpetration of a robbery.

David J. Wierenga v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1101-CR-159
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony auto theft and habitual offender status.

Joshua D. Sutton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A05-1104-CR-223
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor as Class A misdemeanors.

Jason Ross v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A05-1102-CR-82
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator and Class A misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia.

North Lake Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC d/b/a North Lake Rehabilitation Center v. The Estate of Cocteus Mason by Special Administrator, Tyniesha Spears (NFP)
45A03-1105-CT-229
Civil tort. Affirms denial of North Lake’s motion for preliminary determination of a proposed complaint filed with the Indiana Department of Insurance.

Wilson Makori v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1103-CR-103
Criminal. Affirms convictions Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated, which was enhanced to a Class D felony based on a previous OWI conviction, resisting law enforcement and criminal recklessness.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to one case for the week ending Nov. 11.
 

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