ILNews

Opinions Oct. 10, 2012

October 10, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Charles R. Kastner v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
11-1166
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann Jr.
Civil. Reverses denial of disability benefits, finding the administrative law judge did not adequately explain why Kastner had not met the requirements for a presumptive disability. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

In the Matter of G.W. (Minor Child); A.W. (Mother) and J.W. (Stepfather) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
07A01-1201-JM-6
Juvenile miscellaneous. Finds a trial court may order a parent to make a child available for an interview requested by the Department of Child Services to assess the child’s “condition” pursuant to I.C. 31-33-8-7, where the child’s older sibling has made and then recanted allegations of sexual abuse against a family member who lives in the children’s home. Judge Riley dissents.

Tim L. Godby v. State of Indiana
33A01-1203-CR-128
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence. Godby’s belated attempt to correct the error related to costs through the motion to correct erroneous sentence is not proper.

In Re: The Matter of the Paternity of B.G., Minor Child; C.G. (Mother) v. R.M. (Father) (NFP)
77A01-1202-JP-82
Juvenile paternity. Reverses judgment allowing change of B.G.’s name and remands for a determination of best interest as it pertains to B.G.’s last name. Orders trial court to make the weekly child support order retroactive to at least the date that the mother filed the paternity action. Affirms giving the father a parenting time credit of $5.76 per week.

Judson D. Garrett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1205-CR-231
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony robbery.

Charles Musselwhite v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1202-PC-136
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Edward Cecil, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A04-1112-CR-689
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug.

Grandview Memorial Gardens, LLC, Keith Mefford, Brittan Mefford, Richard Eblen and Sherry Eblen v. John C. Eckert, Wilmer E. Goering, II, and Alcorn Goering & Sage, LLP (NFP)
49A02-1111-PL-992
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of summary judgment to Eckert and reverses it as to Goering and AGS. The statute of limitations does not bar the Grandview clients’ claims against Goering and AGS for negligently handling the fire insurance claim and there is a dispute of material fact as to whether the Grandview clients and Goering and AGS had an attorney-client relationship with respect to that matter. Remands for further proceedings.

Zachary Podorsky v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A05-1202-CR-94
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Douglas A. Myers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1202-CR-78
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Paris Knox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1203-CR-214
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

 

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