ILNews

Opinions Oct. 7, 2011

October 7, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

James Fernbach v. State of Indiana
69A01-1103-CR-151
Criminal. Affirms 60-year sentence for two counts of Class A felony attempted murder, holding that the jury’s rejection of Fernbach’s insanity defense was not erroneous.

Joseph A. Taylor v. Alan P. Finnan
48A02-1105-MI-547
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s dismissal of Taylor’s writ of habeas corpus. Affirms trial court’s finding that Taylor’s claim should have proceeded as a petition for post-conviction relief, but that the court should have transferred the case to Floyd County – where Taylor had been convicted and sentenced – rather than dismiss it. Remands to transfer the case to Floyd County.

Lisa A. Davis v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and VOCA of Indiana LLC
93A02-1101-EX-14
Agency appeal. Affirms decision of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board, which affirmed a decision by an administrative law judge determining Davis had been terminated for cause and therefore was ineligible for unemployment benefits. Holds that Davis had failed to provide good cause for missing a hearing and that her employer provided substantial evidence that Davis was terminated for just cause, including theft.

Kelley Seibert d/b/a Seibert's Kennel v. Rick Bryant (NFP)
48A04-1011-SC-750
Small claim. Reverses small claims court’s judgment in favor of Bryant, holding that the trial court erred in ignoring a provision in the contract between Bryant and Seibert. Remands with orders to enter judgment in favor of Seibert.

Jerramy Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1104-CR-294
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Bane Elliott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1008-CR-566
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of child molesting, but remands to the court to revise Elliott’s 40-year sentence to 35 years, holding that Elliott had met his burden of establishing that his sentence was inappropriate.

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT