ILNews

Opinions Sept. 26, 2011

September 26, 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 had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Angela K. Farno v. Ansure Mortuaries of Indiana, LLC, et al.
41A05-1002-PL-104
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Farno’s motion for class certification on superiority grounds regarding the alleged looting of cemetery trusts that had been funded from proceeds of purchases of pre-need burial services. The trial court did not err in finding the receiver’s action provided a superior method to recovery any of the missing trust funds.

Matthew Goldberg, et al. v. Angela K. Farno, et al.
41A01-1007-MF-348
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms certification of plaintiff class for settlement purposes and order granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. Goldberg has no standing to challenge the settlement because he hasn’t suffered plain legal prejudice. Adopts the “plain legal prejudice” standard based on Federal Rule 41(a)(2).

Starlett Gilbert v. State of Indiana
49A04-1102-CR-77
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony prostitution. The police officer’s testimony at trial was not hearsay and Gilbert had the opportunity to cross-examine the officer, but did not.

Joshua J. Hubble v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A05-1012-CR-741
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to causing death while operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of 0.15 or more as a Class B felony, two counts of Class D felony criminal recklessness, and Class D felony criminal mischief.

Thomas M. Slaats v. Sally E. Slaats (NFP)

87A01-1009-DR-523
Domestic relation. Affirms order modifying child support and parenting time.

Michael Reynolds v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1012-CR-799
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony manufacturing methamphetamine.

Jeremy Cuzzort v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1101-CR-51
Criminal. Affirms denial of request to pursue a belated appeal.

Derrick R. Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1008-PC-571
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to one case and declined five for the week ending Sept. 23.

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