ILNews

Opinions Oct. 16, 2012

October 16, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Charles Mitchell v. State of Indiana
49A02-1202-CR-125
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class D felony theft. The evidence is sufficient to show Mitchell and the other defendants knowingly exerted unauthorized control over the apartment complex’s water heater with the intent to deprive the apartments of any part of its value or use. The advisory sentence imposed, with all but 60 days suspended to probation, was not inappropriate.

Juan Manuel Correa, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1202-CR-105
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary and Class C felony intimidation.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.U., minor child, and S.U., the mother; S.U. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A05-1201-JT-13
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT