ILNews

Opinions Oct. 20, 2010

October 20, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
J.B. v. E.B.
34A04-1002-DR-110
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court decision to exclude son’s counseling records at a custody modification hearing. The instant case is a proceeding within the purview of Indiana Code Section 31-32-11-1 and the counselor/client privilege does not apply. Remands for further proceedings.  

Charles R. Wyatt, et al. v. Thomas E. Wheeler, et al.
49A02-1006-PL-636
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Wyatt’s petition for review of final agency action by the Indiana Election Commission and petition for preliminary injunctive and declarative relief. Affirms denial of Ellspermann’s request for attorney’s fees. The irregularity in Ellspermann’s declaration and any misconstruction of Indiana Code Section 3-8-2-7 by the IEC or the Marion Superior Court cannot justify reversal of the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction because it would contradict the will of the electorate and disenfranchise voters.

Keesha Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1002-CR-98
Criminal. Reverses conviction of possession of marijuana as a Class D felony.

Howard Smallwood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1001-PC-1
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Mark A. Rode v. State of Indiana (NFP)
91A04-1005-CR-263
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Bruce Fivecoat v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1003-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony armed robbery and one count of Class B felony criminal confinement.

Adoption of K.M.A.; R.R. v. Adoptive Parents (NFP)
29A02-1003-AD-499
Adoption. Affirms adoption order granted in favor of the adoptive parents.

Antrooine A. Manning v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1002-CR-65
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felony robbery, Class D felony resisting law enforcement, and adjudication as a habitual offender.

East Valparaiso LLC v. Physicians for Women, et al. (NFP)
64A05-1004-PL-222
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of East Valparaiso’s request for injunctive relief in a dispute over a lease agreement. Remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion regarding the parties’ remaining claims and counterclaims.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.A. and D.R.; C.A. and J.H. v. IDCS (NFP)
48A02-1003-JT-317
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Marlet D. Turpin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-285
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony and Class C felony child molesting.

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. 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