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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT