ILNews

Opinions Sept. 21, 2012

September 21, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not post any Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court did not post any opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Justin Taylor v. State of Indiana
49A05-1201-CR-4
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony failing to register as a sex offender. Rejects argument that ankle bracelet alerted authorities Taylor was living at a different address.

Janice Brandom v. Coupled Products, LLC
92A03-1112-PL-542
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Brandom’s motion to dismiss a defamation lawsuit pursuant to the “anti-SLAPP’ statute, finding the question of whether statements were made in good faith and without malice should be decided by a jury.

A.G. v. P.G.
49A04-1201-PO-94
Order of protection. Affirms extension of P.G.’s protective order against A.G, declining to reweigh evidence.

Stephen Williams, Special Administrator of the Estate of Roscoe Petty, et al. v. Safe Auto Insurance Company (NFP)
11A01-1202-CT-70
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Safe Auto on its declaratory judgment action.
 
The Kroger Company d/b/a Jay C. Food Store v. Deborah and David Tincher (NFP)
47A04-1204-CT-194
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Kroger’s Trial Rule 60(B) motion to set aside a default judgment in favor of the Tinchers in their person injury action against Kroger.
 
Keith A. White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1204-CR-312
Criminal. Affirms denial of White’s motion to correct erroneous sentence.

In Re: The Paternity of J.T.F., Minor Child, M.A.J., II, Father v. D.H., Mother, State of Indiana (NFP)
 53A05-1203-JP-179
Juvenile paternity. Affirms trial court’s denial of father’s motion for a paternity test.

 Derik Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1112-CR-1152
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s guilty judgment but remands for correction of the abstract of judgment to reflect Miller’s conviction of driving while suspended is an infraction.

Mathew A. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1110-CR-991
Criminal. Affirms trial court was not obligated to sever the counts against Johnson, the jury was properly instructed and the sentence was not inappropriate.

David T. Stephanoff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1112-CR-1129
Criminal. Affirms the trial court’s order that Stephanoff serve the sentences for theft consecutive to the sentences for his two other crimes but remands for correction of scrivener’s error in the sentencing order.

Mark A. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1112-CR-681
Criminal. Affirms Johnson’s rape conviction but based on double jeopardy principles, reverses convictions of criminal confinement and battery and remands for the trial court to correct its records accordingly.

In Re The Civil Commitment of: J.B. v. Community North Hospital Gallahue Mental Health (NFP)
49A04-1202-MH-85
Mental health. Affirms trial court’s order temporarily committing J.B. at Community Hospital North.
 
Pharoah D. Newton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1111-CR-507
Criminal. Affirms Newton’s conviction and sentence for murder.
 
T.C., Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1112-JV-679
Juvenile. Affirms T.C.’s adjudication as a delinquent child for committing acts that would constitute child molesting if committed by an adult.
 
Ricky Rapier v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1202-CR-92
Criminal. Affirms Rapier’s conviction of battery as a Class D felony.

 

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT