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. 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."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT