ILNews

Opinions Nov. 17, 2011

November 17, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no Indiana opinions as of IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court
Indiana Spine Group, PC v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC
93S02-1102-EX-90
Miscellaneous. Reverses decision by Worker’s Compensation Board dismissing as untimely Indiana Spine Group’s application for adjustment of claim. Holds that the Worker’s Compensation Act is silent on the question of the limitation period applicable to a medical provider’s claim seeking payment of outstanding bills for authorized treatment to an employer’s employee. Holds that the limitation period contained in the general statute of limitation controls. Remands for further proceedings consistent with opinion.

D.C. v. State of Indiana
49S02-1102-JV-116
Juvenile. Reverses trial court’s dispositional order imposing a determinate commitment of two years in the Department of Correction, to be followed by an indeterminate commitment, holding that the determinate and indeterminate commitment statutes are unambiguously mutually exclusive. Remands to the court to determine which type of commitment is appropriate.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David Hoffman v. State of Indiana
03A01-1104-CR-180
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of Hoffman’s motion to dismiss, holding that he is not entitled to relief on double jeopardy grounds because the record fails to prove that being demoted by the United States Army was related to his arrest, and the Army action was not equivalent to prosecution by the state.

Jane Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis
49A02-1107-CT-595
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s determination that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis had no legal responsibility to continue paying for Jane Doe’s therapy costs, as the Archdiocese had been paying for counseling voluntarily.

Lindell Patterson v. State of Indiana
49A05-1102-CR-38
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, holding that because an officer was able to discern during a pat-down search that Patterson had marijuana in his pocket, the evidence was admissible under the “plain feel” doctrine.

Shawn Brent v. State of Indiana
34A04-1105-CR-268
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, holding that because police officers did not find marijuana on Brent or see him discard it, no proof exists of actual possession. Reverses Class B misdemeanor visiting a common nuisance based on the state’s concession that it did not prove that claim.

Larry Michael Caraway v. State of Indiana
47A01-1104-CR-162
Criminal. Reverses 65-year sentence for murder, holding that the court abused its discretion when it failed to consider Caraway’s guilty plea as a mitigator. Remands to the court for resentencing consistent with opinion.  

Bren Simon, as Personal Rep. of the Estate of Melvin Simon; and Bren Simon, as Trustee of the Melvin Simon Family Enterprises Trust Agreement v. Deborah J. Simon, Simon Property Group, Inc., et al.
29A05-1012-ES-760
Estate, supervised. Dismisses appeal, holding that because Bren Simon was dismissed as personal representative, she does not have authority to pursue an appeal in a representative capacity.

Cordell M. Wells v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A04-1101-CR-32
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and trial court’s order that Wells serve two years of his previously suspended sentence.

Rissie M. Green v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Covenant Care Indiana (NFP)
93A02-1105-EX-421
Miscellaneous. Affirms decision by Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board affirming an administrative law judge’s decision to dismiss Green’s appeal.

Leroy G. Meahl v. Donna J. Meahl (NFP)
36A01-1104-DR-188
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order dissolving marriage.

In Re the Marriage of: Mary K. (Butler) Weir v. Steven J. Butler (NFP)
02A05-1105-DR-287
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s decision in favor of Steven Butler, holding the court properly awarded child support credit for college expense payments.

Ralph Goodman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1105-CR-435
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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. 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