ILNews

Opinions Nov. 19, 2013

November 19, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Gersh Zavodnik v. Michela Rinaldi, et al
49S05-1311-CT-759
Civil tort. Reverses order of dismissal and remands to the trial court for further proceedings without prejudice to dismissal under Trial Rule 41(E) if warranted after further consideration.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Anthony Scott Bratcher v. State of Indiana 
90A02-1301-CR-3
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2013/november/11191302rrp.pdf
Criminal. Affirms 15-year executed sentence for conviction of Class B felony child molesting, finding that the sentence was not a maximum, since five years of the 20-year term was suspended to probation, and the sentence was not inappropriate. The majority also affirmed a condition of probation restricting Bratcher’s contact with children, but Judge Terry Crone dissented on that issue, finding the condition was unconstitutionally vague.

Fawn McDonald-Woolridge v. Jacob Woolridge (NFP)
53A01-1204-DR-593
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s admitting evidence and finding McDonald-Woolridge in contempt. Remands for trial court to revise order allowing the supervising agency to determine when the father’s parenting time would become unsupervised. Also remands for trial court to re-evaluate make-up parenting time and who should best pay for supervised parenting time.

Lindsey J. Barger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A05-1303-CR-136
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor battery.

Laray Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1304-CR-127
Criminal. Affirms conviction for arson, a Class B felony, and resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor.

Morgan Govan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1302-PC-91
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Govan’s petition for post-conviction relief.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT