ILNews

Opinions Sept. 20, 2011

September 20, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court
Rod L. Avery and Marshall K. Avery v. Trina R. Avery
49S05-1102-PL-76
Civil plenary. Affirms default judgment entered against Rod and Marshall Avery. The Indiana Trial Rules apply to will contest actions, and the failure to file an answer or responsive pleading in accordance with Trial Rule 7 may result in a default judgment.

Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana

82S05-1007-CR-343
Criminal. Grants rehearing and affirms original opinion that residents don’t have a common law right to resist police entering a person’s home. The castle doctrine is not a defense to battery or any violence against a police officer who is acting in his or her duties. Justice Rucker dissents.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Thomas Temple v. State of Indiana
27A05-1101-CR-31
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Rejects Temple’s proposed definition of “induce,” and rejects his claims, premised upon that definition, that there was insufficient evidence and that there was a fatal variance between the charging information and the evidence adduced at trial.

State of Indiana v. Jonathon McDonald
32A05-1102-CR-56
Criminal. Reverses dismissal of charges against McDonald. The trial court erred by dismissing the charges based on the successive prosecution statute. Remands for further proceedings.

David L. McDaniel v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A03-1102-CR-72
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony criminal recklessness.

Darnell Kelly, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1101-CR-67
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony burglary and finding that Kelly is a habitual offender.

Richard West v. Elizabeth West (now Smith) (NFP)
22A01-1102-DR-45
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Richard West’s petition to modify child custody and the award of $5,000 in attorney fees to Elizabeth West.

Daniel Zunica v. Zuncor, Inc., Steven A. Coppolillo, Jared Tomich, et al. (NFP)
45A04-1009-PL-700
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of motion to correct error brought by Zunica, which challenged a jury verdict finding him liable for breach of fiduciary duty in an action brought by Zuncor Inc. and shareholders.

Jon Dalton Gates v. State of Indiana (NFP)

12A02-1102-CR-160
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT