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. 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