ILNews

Opinions Oct. 2, 2012

October 2, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Moise Joseph v. State of Indiana
82A05-1108-CR-387
Criminal. Reverses convictions of Class A felony burglary resulting in serious bodily injury, Class B felony attempted armed robbery and Class B felony criminal confinement. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting Joseph’s statements to the police detective.

Willie Bigsbee v. State of Indiana
34A02-1201-CR-60
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine. Finds trial court did not err in overruling Batson objections, and there is sufficient evidence to support the convictions.

Brian Yost v. Wabash College, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc., Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity - Indiana Gamma Chapter at Wabash College, and Nathan Cravens
54A01-1201-CT-31
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Wabash and the Phi Kappa Psi defendants in Yost’s suit seeking compensatory and punitive damages after he was injured by his fraternity brothers. The defendants did not breach any duty owed to Yost and finds Yost was not a victim of hazing under the state’s anti-hazing statute or of other foreseeable criminal conduct. Judge Vaidik concurs in part and dissents in part.

Raymond C. Tisdale v. Christine M. (Tisdale) Bolick (NFP)
49A02-1202-DR-138
Domestic relation. Reverses order in which the court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Raymond Tisdale’s petition to modify child support. Remands with instructions to hold a hearing.

Douglas Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1201-CR-5
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for felony murder.

Lora L. Karr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1112-CR-591
Criminal. Affirms denial of pretrial motion to suppress.

Scott J. Welton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A05-1202-CR-67
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Garrett Andrew Plumlee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1203-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony criminal recklessness.

Herbert Preasha v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1204-CR-173
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to have certain items seized at the time of Preasha’s arrest returned to him. Remands with instructions.

Tracy A. Lawrence v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1203-CR-125
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Arthur J. Bryant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A04-1109-PC-542
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 

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