ILNews

Opinions Oct. 13, 2011

October 13, 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
George Michael True v. State of Indiana
39A04-1102-CR-37
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. There was no serious evidentiary dispute about whether the battery was committed in the presence of the children. Instructing the jury that it could convict True of a Class A misdemeanor domestic battery instead of as a Class D felony improperly invited the jury to reach a “compromise” verdict. Remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

LeChann Davis v. State of Indiana
49A02-1103-CR-184
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting. Any abuse of discretion to allow E.S.’s mother’s testimony that E.S. told her that Davis pinched his bottom during Davis’ bench trial was harmless. There is sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Holiday Hospitality Franchising Inc. v. AMCO Insurance Company
33A01-1103-CT-104
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for AMCO Insurance Co. in a suit for negligent hiring, retention and/or supervision. The alleged negligent acts give rise to an “occurrence” under the circumstances of the case and a genuine question of material fact remains regarding whether R.M.H. was in the hotel’s “care, custody or control.” Remands for further proceedings.

Jeffrey D. Lacher, et al. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Bemis Co., Inc.
93A02-1102-EX-163
Agency appeal. Affirms denial of employees’ claims for unemployment benefits. The evidence does not support an inference that the employees were locked out of work; it supports the conclusion that an impasse had been reached on the issue of the temporary employee clause.

William Anderson v. Alicia Jones (NFP)
29A02-1104-DR-311
Domestic relation. Affirms order apportioning educational expenses for the couple’s eldest daughter and uninsured medical expenses for the couple’s youngest child.

Stacy A. Jenkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A01-1102-CR-050
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Jenkins serve the balance of his sentence in the Department of Correction.

Jamar Alston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-PC-307
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In Re: The Marriage of William Scott Mitchell v. Crystal Hope Bailey (NFP)
88A01-1102-DR-72
Domestic relation. Affirms distribution of property and remands for clarification.

Associated Estates Realty Corporation v. Angela Mason (NFP)
49A02-1105-CT-426
Civil tort. Reverses denial of Associated Estates Realty Corp.’s motion for relief from a default judgment and remands for further proceedings.

D.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-JV-109
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent juvenile for committing what would be burglary and theft if committed by an adult.

In Re: The Paternity of K.K.A. v. D.J.K. (NFP)
82A01-1103-JP-94
Juvenile. Reverses grant of petition for name change filed by father D.J.K. regarding child K.K.A.

Philip Walker, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1101-CR-112
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony battery and Class D felony cocaine possession.

Metro Health Professionals Inc. v. Carmel Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Inc., d/b/a Champion Chrysler Jeep Dodge (NFP)
06A01-1105-CT-214
Civil tort. Affirms order awarding Metro Health Professionals $3,500 in attorney fees instead of the $37,737.50 that it requested.

Bruce A. White, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1101-CR-28
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and 65-year sentence for murder.

Cindi M. Hrovat v. Thomas W. Kirchner (NFP)
84A01-1102-DR-31
Domestic relation. Affirms order denying Hrovat’s verified notice of intent to relocate.

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. 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