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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT