ILNews

Opinions Sept. 4, 2012

September 4, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Nathan S. Berkman v. State of Indiana
45A04-1111-CR-583
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for murder. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a witness unavailable or in admitting the deposition testimony of another unavailable witness. Berkman’s sentence is not inappropriate as he had argued.

Hood's Gardens, Inc. v. Jason Young, Craig Mead d/b/a Discount Tree Excavation a/k/a D & E Tree Extraction
29A04-1201-PL-8
Civil plenary. Reverses dismissal of Hood’s Gardens’ declaratory judgment action involving Craig Mead, Jason Young and D&E Tree Extraction seeking to not have to pay workers’ compensation benefits to Young. The exclusivity provisions of the Worker’s Compensation Act did not give the board exclusive jurisdiction to decide the simple contract construction issue raised in the trial court by HG. Remands for further proceedings.
 
Tommi Emerson Winn v. State of Indiana
42A04-1201-CR-49
Criminal. Reverses denial of Winn’s motion for bail bond reduction. While the severity of the 13 charges supports setting the bail at $25,000, the absence of any other factors to suggest Winn is a flight risk means the court should have granted his request to deposit an amount not less than 10 percent of bail under I.C. 35-33-8-3.2(a). Judge Brown concurs in part.

Heather N. Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc.
49A02-1111-CT-1031
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment to Hubler Nissan on Kesling’s Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act, and fraud claims. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hubler made a representation that the car was safe to operate. Judge Friedlander dissents.

Dennis J. Rodenberg v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1201-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony rape.

Damon T. Payne, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1204-CR-190
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed for three counts of Class D felony theft.

Charles B. Dietzen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1112-CR-1104
Criminal. Affirms order reinstating suspended sentence.

Victoria Yates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1202-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Olympia Shellman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1201-CR-34
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea.

James W. Manhart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A04-1203-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition to convert convictions from Class D felonies resisting law enforcement and operating a vehicle while intoxicated to Class A misdemeanors.

Artrece D. Patterson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1112-CR-693
Criminal. Affirms finding of violation and revocation of probation.

Noble Potter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1112-CR-619
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony residential burglary and being a habitual offender.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT