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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT