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. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT