ILNews

Opinions Oct. 5, 2011

October 5, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
P.J. v. State of Indiana

49A05-1102-JV-121
Juvenile. Affirms restitution order following adjudication, after a guilty plea, as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class B felony burglary if committed by an adult. P.J. waived his right to have the juvenile court inquire into his ability to pay, as he has acknowledged such ability in his plea agreement.

State of Indiana v. Gordon V. Vankirk
29A02-1012-CR-1418
Criminal. Affirms trial court finding Vankirk not guilty of operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life as a Class C felony. Entering a judgment of conviction for a Class A misdemeanor pursuant to Indiana Code 35-38-1-1.5 for an offense under I.C. 9-30-10-16 removes the lifetime forfeiture of a defendant’s driving privileges.

David Robinson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1101-CR-13
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation. The trial court erred in admitting an affidavit prepared by a detective based on information another police officer told him regarding a domestic dispute between Robinson and his girlfriend. The state presented and the trial court found there were additional factors warranting revocation of Robinson’s probation.

Howard Steele v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-CR-157
Criminal. Reverses post-conviction court’s summary denial of petition for education credit time for a high school diploma earned from an unaccredited school. Remands for a hearing.

Jyshawn D. Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)

71A03-1102-CR-115
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to three counts of Class B felony burglary.

Myia Relphorde v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1103-CR-91
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony conspiracy to commit robbery.

Raymond Cox, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A04-1101-CR-116
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to possession of marijuana as a Class D felony.

Christopher West v. Eileen Mary Flaherty (NFP)
49A04-1012-CC-747
Civil collection. Affirms denial of West’s motion to declare a California judgment void and to vacate an agreed judgment.

In Re: The Unsupervised Administration of the Estate of Ozella T. Schlosser, deceased (NFP)
30A01-1106-EU-226
Estate, unsupervised. Dismisses William Schlosser’s appeal of the denial of his petition to reopen the estate of his mother.

Daniel J. Hollen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
42A01-1105-MI-206
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of motion to correct error.

Frederick Hampton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-258
Criminal. Affirms imposition of a $100 public defender fee.

Delbert R. Majors v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1012-CR-660
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony causing death when operating a motor vehicle with a schedule II controlled substance in the blood.

In Re: The Marriage of Dorothy Borgan v. Terry R. Borgan, Sr. (NFP)
49A04-1012-DR-785
Domestic relation. Reverses order as it pertains to modification of the wife’s portion of the husband’s monthly retirement payment and instructs the trial court, if necessary, to have a new qualified domestic relations order entered which reflects this decision. Affirms denial of wife’s contempt and attorney fees petition.

Term. of Parent-Child of T.S.; A.R. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
71A03-1104-JT-210
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT