ILNews

Opinions Oct. 11, 2012

October 11, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Edward Jeroski, doing business as USA Cleaning Service and Building Maintenance v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission and U.S. Secretary of Labor
11-3687
Agency review. Denies USA Cleaning’s petition to review the order of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, which affirmed the denial of an application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The meaning of “prevailing party” under the act does not apply to USA Cleaning, which was the subject of an order by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration that was later dropped.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

William A. Boyd and Janice Ann Boyd v. State of Indiana
28A01-1203-PL-108
Civil plenary. Affirms the state’s taking of the Boyds’ property for use in constructing Interstate-69 in southwest Indiana. None of the Boyds’ claims are reviewable in eminent domain proceedings.

David E. Lyons v. State of Indiana
76A03-1112-CR-582
Criminal. Affirms convictions of five counts of Class A felony child molesting. The requirements of Evidence Rule 702 were satisfied and the admission of Dr. Judith Williams’ testimony did not constitute error or a fundamental error.

Andrew Machi v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A04-1203-CR-166
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Daniel Crabtree v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1203-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed after Crabtree’s probation for Class C felony child molesting was revoked.

Matthew Bryant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1110-CR-496
Criminal. Reduces Bryant’s conviction of Class C felony battery to a Class B misdemeanor and remands for resentencing, which will have no effect on his aggregate 93-year sentence. Affirms remaining convictions of Class A felony burglary, two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, and two counts of Class C felony intimidation.

Shellie P. App v. William App, Jr. (NFP)
67A01-1203-DR-99
Domestic relation. Finds trial court erred by entering a post-secondary educational expense order in the absence of a worksheet or its own findings and conclusions and by failing to specify which parent should claim the child as a dependent for tax purposes. Affirms in all other respects. Remands with instructions.

John Tompkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1111-CR-690
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony burglary and status as a habitual offender.
 

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