ILNews

Opinions Sept. 24, 2010

September 24, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Subpoena to Crisis Connection, Inc., State of Indiana v. Ronald Keith Fromme
19A05-0910-CR-602
Criminal. Grants rehearing for clarification and affirms original decision outlining the threshold a defendant must make before obtaining an in camera review of records that are privileged.

B.M., Alleged to be CHINS; IDCS, and Child Advocates, Inc. v. Me.M. and P.M. (NFP)
49A04-1002-JC-96
Juvenile. Affirms determination there is insufficient evidence to prove B.M. is a child in need of services.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.V.; C.V. v. Tippecanoe County DCS (NFP)
79A02-1003-JT-794
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Mohamed M. Krad v. BP Products, et al. (NFP)
45A05-0912-CV-745
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of BP Products and other defendants in an action for fraud and legal malpractice stemming from a real estate transaction.

Eric L. Hatcher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A04-1002-CR-59
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class D felony receiving stolen property.

Robert D. Merz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A05-1002-CR-173
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

Ronald R. Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-0910-CR-480
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony voluntary manslaughter and the refusal of the trial court to allow Lewis to withdraw his guilty plea.

Sherman E. Fuller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1001-CR-73
Criminal. Reverses revocation of probation.

Julian D. Grady v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-0912-CR-749
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony robbery.

Adam O. Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
25A03-1004-CR-235
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony nonsupport of a dependent child.

Richard Jandura v. Town of Schererville (NFP)
45A04-1005-PL-308
Civil plenary. Affirms entry of judgment against Jandura and in favor of the town in his complaint regarding the Town’s Board of Police Commissioners’ discipline imposed against him.  

Coy Daniels v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1277
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder, Class B felony robbery, and Class C felony battery.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT