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

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT