ILNews

Opinions Nov. 29, 2012

November 29, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Terry and Laura Wagler, Larry and Jennifer Wagler, Norman Wagler, and Janet and Nathan Wagler v. West Boggs Sewer District Inc.
14A01-1109-PL-427
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of the Waglers’ motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 60(B), and that the court did not err in directing Janet and Nathan Wagler to connect to the sewer system. Denies West Boggs’ request for appellate attorney fees.

Miles Ogea d/b/a Mo Auger Investments and Mo's Tavern v. Karamesines Credit Shelter Trust (NFP)
18A04-1206-CT-288
Civil tort. Affirms ruling that Ogea has a duty to indemnify the second trust pursuant to the lease agreement between Ogea and the trust.

H. Wayne Burnett, M.D. v. Pamela A. Burnett, M.D. (NFP)
29A02-1203-DR-180
Domestic relation. Affirms valuation of Dr. H. Wayne Burnett’s partnership interest in a medical practice and the award of expert witness fees to Dr. Pamela A. Burnett. Affirms unequal division of the marital estate.

Richard A. Childress, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A03-1206-PC-246
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel.of: M.M. (Minor Child), and S.H. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
85A02-1204-JT-323
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Corbin Bardonner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1205-CR-231
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A felony child molesting.

Jamey Taskey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
67A01-1204-CR-164
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony neglect of a dependent.

David S. Healey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A04-1202-MI-107
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of verified petition to remove designation as offender.

Vickie Fenoglio, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Paul Fenoglio, Deceased v. Gregory Brock, D.O. (NFP)
84A04-1202-PL-59
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Dr. Gregory Brock.

Timothy J. Gilbert v. State of Indiana (NFP)
62A01-1205-PC-213
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

 

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