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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT