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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT