ILNews

Opinions Oct. 4, 2012

October 4, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Angelina Povey v. City of Jeffersonville, Indiana
11-1896
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for the city on Povey’s claim that her termination of employment by the city animal shelter violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and on her retaliation claim. Povey failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that she was disabled under the ADA and is not protected by its provisions.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

In the Matter of Minor Children Alleged to be in Need of Services, T.G., A.G., and D.G., Minor Children; L.E., Mother v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
53A01-1203-JC-130
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms finding children are children in need of services.  

L.D.P. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1203-JV-161
Juvenile. Affirms order L.D.P. pay restitution secondary to her adjudication as a delinquent child.

Ryan K. Powell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A01-1205-CR-195
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections and revocation of probation.

Ronald A. Bohannon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A01-1203-CR-115
Criminal. Affirms post-conviction court did not err in denying claim that Bohannon’s sentence violated prohibitions against double jeopardy, that the state violated I.C. 35-34-1-5(e), and in finding that Bohannon received effective assistance of counsel. Remands to correct his sentence in accordance with the post-conviction court’s determination that his original sentence for Count III was impermissibly enhanced twice.

D.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1201-PC-18
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brandon A. Henson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1201-CR-013
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder.

David Allen Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A05-1201-CR-16
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder.

Justine Miller v. Anonymous Healthcare Organization, DOE 1, DOE 2, DOE 3, DOE 4, and DOE 5 (NFP)
49A02-1201-CT-117
Civil tort. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of the health care organization on Miller’s claims of slander and infliction of emotional distress.

Melissa Ramos Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1203-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felonies aggravated battery and neglect of a dependent.

Thomas Carr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1202-CR-67
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two counts of Class B felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon and two counts of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Marcel D. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1201-CR-28
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.
 

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT