ILNews

Opinions Sept. 7, 2012

September 7, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Robert S. Filus v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
No. 12-1164
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey.
Civil/Social Security. Affirms denial of disability benefits, holding that substantial evidence supports the decision of the administrative law judge.  

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re Adoption of M.L.; J.H. v. J.L. and C.L.
29A02-1201-AD-54
Adoption. Affirms trial court ruling that the biological father was an unfit parent and therefore the adoptive parents did not need to get his consent for the adoption.

Kenneth W. Smith and Deb-Anne Smith v. Dermatology Associates of Fort Wayne, P.C. a/k/a Dermatology & Laser Surgery Associates of Fort Wayne, P.C.
02A03-1201-CT-41
Civil tort. Affirms lower court ruling that a burn patient failed to present sufficient evidence to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Timothy A. Bolin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A01-1202-CR-89
Criminal. Affirms order modifying sentence after a conviction of Class B felony conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and guilty plea to Class B felony manufacturing methamphetamine.

Dwayne Rhoiney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-CR-650
Criminal/rehearing. Reaffirms original opinion upholding trial court sentence for murder, criminal confinement and carrying a handgun without a license.

Damionne M. Nichols v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1203-CR-133
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Class B felony.

Janella Datcher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1111-CR-506
Criminal. Affirms convictions and 35-year sentence for Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class D felony battery.

Terrance Mitchem v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1110-PC-497
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief for murder, attempted murder, three counts of attempted murder, two counts of rape and one count of criminal deviate conduct.

Lance Scott Boutte v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1202-CR-91
Criminal. Affirms trial court denial of petition to file a belated notice of appeal.

Curtis B. Lay v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1111-CR-1074
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in a schedule III controlled substance.

T.A.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1204-JV-154
Criminal. Affirms juvenile court order placing T.A.B. in Indiana Boys School.

Indiana Tax Court
Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, Inheritance Tax Division v. The Supervised Estate of John A. Schoenenberger, Deceased
49T10-1010-TA-54
Estate. Reverses probate court determination that the estate was entitled to interest on its refund claim computed according to the 1980 version of Indiana Code 6-4.1-10-1 and judgment interest. The tax court held that a refund on inheritance tax paid was done so within the statutorily required timeframe, and therefore the probate court erred in granting the estate interest on its refund claim and judgment interest. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Supreme 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. 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