ILNews

Opinions Nov. 28, 2011

November 28, 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
Jennings Daugherty v. State of Indiana
89A05-1103-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony possession of cocaine and Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance. Daugherty’s arguments on appeal are insufficient to demonstrate reversible error. Affirms the admission of the state’s evidence.

Manuel Trujillo v. State of Indiana
71A03-1102-PC-73
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petitions for post-conviction relief, in which Trujillo challenged two separate convictions under separate cause numbers for conspiracy to deal marijuana. Trujillo can’t establish that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to advise him that the 1999 and 2008 prosecutions may impact his immigration status. The trial courts in the two cases also did not violate Indiana Code 35-35-1-2 in accepting Trujillo’s guilty pleas.

Eric Stickdorn and Lisa Stickdorn v. Elam B. Zook, Sarah F. Zook, Samuel L. Lantz and Mattie Z. Lantz
89A01-1012-CT-670
Civil tort. Affirms determination that the Stickdorns’ personal injury claims against the Lantzes and the negligence claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations. By 2005, the Stickdorns’ complaint for personal injury had accrued and were ascertainable, but the complaint was not filed until November 2009. Reverses grant of summary judgment for the Lantzes with regards to the nuisance and trespass claims and remands for further proceedings. The designated evidence establishes that the Lantzes refused to stop or change their waste storage, disposal and management practices that harmed the Stickdorns through April 2005. The statute of limitations did not preclude the Stickdorns from complaining about the continued instances of nuisance and trespass.

Marsean Shines v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1105-CR-237
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony domestic battery, Class D felony criminal confinement, Class B misdemeanor false informing, and Shines’ habitual offender enhancement.

James C. Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1103-CR-178
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of the previously suspended portion of Lewis’ sentence.

Richard Edward Hughes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1103-CR-165
Criminal. Reverses in part Hughes' convictions of Class C felony battery with a deadly weapon and Class D felony criminal recklessness and orders the trial court to vacate the conviction of and sentence for criminal recklessness.

Aaron Spears v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A05-1104-CR-204
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death.

David Rippe v. Edward C. Levy Company (NFP)
45A03-1102-CT-30
Civil tort.  Affirms jury verdict in favor of Edward C. Levy Co. that found Levy not liable for the injuries Rippe sustained while an employee of an independent contractor at a Levy site.

Angela Townsell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1104-CR-343
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanors intimidation and battery.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of Z.S.; C.S. and L.S. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
67A01-1104-JT-193
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of G.B. and J.N.; E.B. (mother) and A.N. (father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1104-JT-315
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Donald L. Pruitt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1105-CR-218
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life.

Daniel Walton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1105-CR-198
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Brian K. Brantley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1102-CR-158
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct, Class C felony battery, two counts of Class D felony intimidation, and battery as a Class A misdemeanor and Class B misdemeanor.

Jasper Frazier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony attempted robbery, Class B felony conspiracy to commit robbery, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT