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

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