ILNews

Opinions Sept. 13, 2012

September 13, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court

An-Hung Yao and Yu-Ting Lin v. State of Indiana
35S02-1112-CR-704
Criminal. Cannot conclude that as a matter of law the defendants engaged in no conduct nor effected any result in Indiana that was an element of either the theft or the counterfeiting charge. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying sub silentio Lin’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The defendants’ airsoft gun is a written instrument within the meaning of the statute and therefore reverses the trial court’s dismissal of the counterfeiting charges. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss the theft and corrupt business influence charges.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Cortney L. Schwartz v. Jodi S. Heeter
02A03-1109-DR-401
Domestic relation/Rehearing. Clarifies holding that Jodi Heeter waived her arguments on the motions for modification of support on appeal. She is not entitled to reconsideration of the motions by the trial court.  

Ann L. Miller and Richard A. Miller v. Glenn L. Dobbs, D.O., and Partners in Health

15A05-1108-CT-431
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Dr. Dobbs and Partners in Health. Where, as here, the proposed complaint was delivered or mailed by registered or certified mail to the Department of Insurance within the statute of limitations, but did not contain the filing and processing fees, and the fees were paid shortly after the plaintiffs were informed of their inadvertent failure to pay the fees, such complaints should be determined on their merits. Remands for further proceedings. Judge Brown concurs in result in a separate opinion; Judge Vaidik dissents.

Michael Patrick Knott and Andrew John Knott v. State of Indiana
28A04-1203-PL-122
Civil plenary. Affirms issuance of order of appropriation and appointment of appraisers in the state’s complaint to acquire a portion of the Knotts’ land to construct Interstate 69. The federal statutes upon which the Knotts’ objections depend do not concern the acquisition of property, but are related to collateral issues concerning the interstate project.  

In Re the Adoption of C.R.R. and S.A.R.; W.E.R. v. D.M.T. (NFP)
49A02-1201-AD-45
Adoption. Affirms order granting the petition filed by D.M.T. to adopt C.R.R. and S.A.R.

Carl S. Piatt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1202-CR-116
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence and remands with instructions.

Delon Churchill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1111-CR-1108
Criminal. Affirms admission of certain evidence and that there was no prosecutorial misconduct. Affirms Class B felony robbery. Remands with instructions the trial court vacate the four Class B felony confinement convictions and sentences. Judge Bradford dissents.

Parrin J. Garner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1110-CR-473
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony robbery.

Clay R. Firestone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1201-PC-32
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands with instructions to assign the habitual offender enhancement to one of Firestone’s convictions.

Indiana Tax Court 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. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  2. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  3. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  4. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

  5. Once again Indiana has not only shown what little respect it has for animals, but how little respect it has for the welfare of the citizens of the state. Dumping manure in a pond will most certainly pollute the environment and ground water. Who thought of this spiffy plan? No doubt the livestock industry. So all the citizens of Indiana have to suffer pollution for the gain of a few livestock producers who are only concerned about their own profits at the expense of everyone else who lives in this State. Shame on the Environmental Rules Board!

ADVERTISEMENT