ILNews

Opinions Oct. 14, 2011

October 14, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Cedric Tharpe v. State of Indiana
49A04-1101-CR-24
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder. Tharpe didn’t show the judge who presided over his case was biased or prejudiced, nor did he demonstrate his trial was unfair. The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying his motion for continuance and there is sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

Nathan Allyn Richardson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1012-CR-757
Criminal. Affirms imposition of three-year executed sentence following revocation of probation.

Amber Easton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-214
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Matthew Spoonemore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1102-CR-64
Criminal. Affirms order that Spoonemore pay Indiana Ticket Company $29,700 in restitution. Remands for the trial court to determine whether it wishes to exercise its discretion and enter judgment as a Class A misdemeanor instead of a Class D felony for theft.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.Y., and D.H. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs. and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A04-1102-JT-107
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of H.G.; M.G. and D.G. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs. (NFP)
82A04-1011-JT-730
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

T.C. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-JV-231
Juvenile. Affirms finding of delinquency.

Eugene M. Gray Trust, A-1 Vacuum, Northwest Optical, and Marion County, Indiana v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-PL-1329
Civil plenary. Affirms decision regarding the amount of interest due to the trust as part of an eminent domain action.

Gordon Northrup, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1103-PC-272
Post conviction. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brian Loveall v. Susan (Loveall) Kelly (NFP)
23A01-1102-DR-47
Domestic relation. Affirms grant of mother’s petition for modification of child support.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT