ILNews

  • Home

Opinions Oct. 25, 2012

October 25, 2012
Keywords
Opinions
Back to TopE-mailPrint

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Ken Nunn Law Office
49A02-1202-CT-68
Civil tort. Reverses denial of State Farm’s motion for summary judgment on the law office’s attempt to recover attorney fees and remands for further proceedings. The law office may not seek payment of a former client’s attorney fees from State Farm under an equitable attorney fee lien or based on a theory of quantum meruit.

Sharhonda Gunn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1202-CR-157
Criminal. Affirms conviction of battery as a Class D felony.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.C.; M.C.; M.G.; & L.C. (Minor Children) and T.G. (mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
36A01-1204-JT-150
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

William A. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A05-1204-CR-210
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony operating while intoxicated and Class B misdemeanor false informing.

Ira W. Huth v. DKR Mortgage Asset Trust 1 (NFP)
64A03-1203-MF-117
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms denial of Huth’s motion for relief from judgment.

Nicolette Deal v. Tyce Deal (NFP)
71A04-1204-DR-178
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Nicolette Deal’s motion objecting to the jurisdiction of the court.

Bart Bell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1204-CR-219
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following guilty plea to Class D felony theft.

Shane Harrold v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1206-PC-518
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVANCED SEARCH
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. Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.

  2. they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.

  3. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  4. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  5. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

ADVERTISEMENT