ILNews

Opinions Oct. 21, 2010

October 21, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Brenda Moore v. State of Indiana
49A04-1001-CR-46
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. Under the circumstances, Moore was not in a public place and therefore the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction of public intoxication. Judge Vaidik dissents.

Kelly A. Fisher v. Estate of Robert Fisher, et al.
48A02-1002-EU-197
Estate. Reverses judgment in favor of the personal representatives of the Estate of Robert Fisher. The refund of the premium paid for an annuity, which Robert Fisher purchased in the name of the family limited partnership and later re-titled in his name, is the property of the family limited partnership. Orders the annuity premium refund to be deposited with the Fisher Family Limited Partnership.

Hamrick's Diesel Service & Trailer Repair, LLC v. City of Evansville, by and through its Board of Public Works
82A01-1003-PL-109
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for the City of Evansville and dismissal of Hamrick’s case. Since Hamrick had no right to have its bid considered it cannot sustain a legal claim to have been deprived of a contractual right for which it is entitled to damages from the city.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.G.; A.G. v. Allen County D.C.S. (NFP)

02A03-1003-JT-341
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

William Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-201
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony burglary.

Gary Parsons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1003-PC-196
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Joseph C. Bannon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A05-1001-CR-120
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony attempted obstruction of justice and Class C felony reckless homicide.

Douglas Griffith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-342
Criminal. Affirms convictions of domestic battery as a Class D felony and battery as a Class A misdemeanor.

Kristina Byers-Escobedo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1003-CR-208
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony neglect of a dependent.

Stacy Price v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1004-CR-366
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

J.H. v. Review Board (NFP)
93A02-1005-EX-607
Civil. Affirms the dismissal of J.H.’s appeal before the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development.

James Merket v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-331
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of conviction of impersonation of a public servant as a Class D felony since Merket is now deceased.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT