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. 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