ILNews

Opinions Sept. 13, 2011

September 13, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

The Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Yasin Hory v. State of Indiana
01A04-1011-IF-717
Infraction. Affirms conviction of Class C infraction illegal parking, holding that Hory failed to establish an express or implied pre-emption of local traffic safety laws by federal motor safety regulations.

Gary R. Shepherd v. Linda S. (Shepherd) Tackett
72A01-1012-DR-692
Domestic relations. Affirms trial court’s post-dissolution order modifying the parties’ property division as stated in the Decree of Dissolution, holding that the order clarified the property division, but did not make substantial changes to the decree.

Mauel Gaeta; Roche Surety & Casualty v. State of Indiana
79A02-1011-CR-1196
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s decision finding Roche Surety & Casualty liable for Gaeta’s bond. On cross-appeal from the state, holds the trial court erred in not finding Roche Surety liable for forfeiture of 20 percent of the bond’s face value, and remands to the trial court for judgment consistent with its opinion.  

Zachariah D. Reese v. State of Indiana
38A05-1104-CR-171
Criminal. Reverses denial of Reese’s request for court-appointed counsel, holding that the record shows that Reese lacked the means to hire an attorney. Remands for a new indigency determination and new trial.

Charles David Kelly v. National Attorneys Title Assurance Fund
69A04-1104-CT-215
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of National Attorneys Title Assurance Fund, holding undisputed facts support the trial court’s judgment.

Joseph N. Meade v. Kathleen F. Meade (NFP)
64A03-1101-DR-56
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court’s modification of child support, holding the court abused its discretion in failing to pro rate Kathleen Meade’s severance pay when it reduced her obligation to $100 per week. Remands to the trial court for proceedings consistent with opinion.

Janice A. Devlin and Kenneth F. Devlin v. AC Roofing, Inc. and Arnold W. Cook (NFP)
34A02-1012-MI-1375
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s denial of the Devlins’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(8). Remands for further proceedings.

Robert A. Predaina v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1006-CR-348
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Shannon Saddler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-CR-120
Criminal. Reverses sentence for Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief, holding the trial court abused its discretion in requiring Saddler to pay restitution before sentencing her.

Jerry Craig v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1421
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of Craig’s motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Ross Pushor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A05-1011-CR-706
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order revoking probation.

Indiana State Board of Dentistry v. Julia Francis (NFP)
55A01-1101-PL-28
Civil plenary. Vacates trial court’s denial of Indiana State Board of Dentistry’s motion to dismiss, holding the court did not have the jurisdiction to hear Francis’ appeal. Accordingly, the appeals court did not address subsequent issues outlined in the appeal.

James E. Sims v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1101-CR-94
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence for Class D felony attempted theft and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT