ILNews

Opinions Oct. 18, 2012

October 18, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

John A. Dugan v. State of Indiana
49A05-1202-PC-50
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief. The court erred when it denied Dugan’s claim that Mills applied retroactively to his habitual offender enhancement. Remands for the court to vacate that enhancement.

Daniel Nanos v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1205-CR-238
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion for jail time credit and remands so that Nanos is granted an additional six days of credit against all of his sentences.

Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd. v. Pharmakon Long Term Care Pharmacy, Inc. f/k/a LIberty Express Scripts, Inc., Paul Elmer, and Veterinary Inventory Solutions, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1110-CC-980
Civil collection. Affirms order limiting Elmer’s personal liability for certain purchases by Veterinary Inventory Solutions Inc. to $3,000.

http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2012/october/10181203cjb.pdf

Gohmann Asphalt & Construction, Inc. v. Five Star Painting, Inc. (NFP)
10A04-1206-CC-324
Civil collection. Reverses order reinstating a complaint filed by Five Star Painting Inc.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.B., Minor Child, and Her Father, S.M.B.; S.M.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
53A01-1204-JT-147
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Blake Clayton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-CR-129
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony pointing a firearm.

Bryan A.Ogle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1202-CR-55
Criminal. Affirms Ogle was properly sentenced for both the Class B felony robbery conviction and habitual offender enhancement but that the court should have ordered the sentences to run consecutively.

Logan Wininiger, Richard Roberts, et al. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, New NGC, Inc. d/b/a National Gypsum Services Company (NFP)
93A02-1203-EX-225
Agency action. Affirms review board’s finding that claimants are ineligible for unemployment compensation because they were unemployed as a result of a labor dispute.

Robert Peacher v. Dennis Davis (NFP)
48A02-1110-SC-1027
Small claim. Affirms order dismissing Peacher’s action against Davis.

State of Indiana v. Shaun L. Steele (NFP)
20A03-1111-PC-502
Post conviction. Reverses grant of Steele’s PCR petition on the issue of double enhancement, but affirms the post-conviction court in all other respects. Remands for further proceedings.
.

 

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