ILNews

Opinions Nov. 21, 2011

November 21, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


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

Indiana Supreme Court had issued no opinions as of IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Jim Norris v. Personal Finance
27A04-1104-SC-183
Small claim. Reverses trial court’s decision denying Norris relief, holding that the trial court erred in concluding that under Trial Rule 4.16, Norris’ parents – when served a notice of claim against Norris – had a duty to inform the court that Norris did not live with them.

Adron Herschel Tancil v. State of Indiana
45A03-1101-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion for a new trial, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Cites a previous Indiana Supreme Court decision stating that intent to kill can be inferred from the nature of the attack, including the duration, brutality and relative strengths of the defendant and victim.

Janice L. Davis v. Shelter Insurance Companies, State Farm Insurance Companies, and Jennifer L. Culver
02A05-1105-CT-256
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Culver and State Farm Insurance Companies, holding no genuine issue of material fact exists and that Davis failed to prove that her claim of equitable estoppel applies.

Myron L. Johnson v. State of Indiana
71A04-1103-CR-194
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation, holding that any failure by Michigan and Indiana to strictly comply with the Interstate Compact with respect to a probable cause hearing for Johnson before his transfer back to Indiana did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to revoke his probation, either as to subject matter or personal jurisdiction.

George B. Warren v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1004-CR-286
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for two counts of Class B felony robbery.

Dewayne L. Campbell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1102-CR-143
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class B felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine and associated charges.

Bruce King v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1105-CR-214
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of probation and order that King serve previously suspended sentence.

Leland K. Roberts v. Hart & Sons Realty, LLC (NFP)
33A01-1103-PL-116
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s judgment quieting title to a tract of land in favor of Hart & Sons Realty.

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. 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