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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT