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 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