ILNews

Opinions Nov. 9, 2010

November 9, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Anthony A. Parish v. State of Indiana
02A03-1002-CR-74
Criminal. Affirms Parish’s convictions of murder, Class B felony robbery, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license, and his sentence to an aggregate term of 86 years of incarceration. On appeal, Parish claimed a protective search of a locked glove box during a traffic stop was constitutionally improper, and therefore evidence found during the search should have been suppressed. COA concluded the protective search was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

Paul Arlton v. Gary Schraut, M.D., and Lafayette Retina Clinic
79A02-0906-CV-541
Civil. Reverses and remands jury verdict in favor of appellees-defendants Dr. Gary Schraut and the Lafayette Retina Clinic. Arlton appealed and presented three issues: whether trial court abused its discretion when it sustained Dr. Schraut’s objections to Arlton’s proffer of printed, enlarged copies of angiograms depicting Arlton’s retina; whether trial court abused its discretion when it refused to provide the jury with access to digital evidence during deliberations; and whether trial court abused its discretion in refusing Arlton’s tendered instruction informing the jury that, if they so desired, they could review the digital evidence during deliberations. COA concluded trial court’s evidentiary and instructional rulings constituted reversible error.

Jess David Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-0909-CR-545
Criminal. Affirms Woods’ conviction of and sentence for murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
 
Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of S.M.; T.U. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

27A04-1005-JT-266
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.
 
Emilio Rivera v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1001-CR-59
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony theft of social security cards.  

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT