ILNews

Opinions Sept. 28, 2010

September 28, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Sarah Haag, et al. v. Mark Castro, The Indiana Youth Soccer Association, et al.
29A04-1001-CT-10
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Virginia Surety Co. Members of the Carmel Commotion Soccer Team traveled to Colorado for a soccer tournament. While in Colorado, the team decided to go on a white-water rafting trip as a team-building activity. While traveling to raft, the van collided with another vehicle and team members were injured. Virginia Surety argued that while the team was sanctioned to attend and compete at the tournament, the use of the van to go white-water rafting was not a use “in the business of the Named Insured” and Indiana Youth Soccer Association did not have knowledge of or authorize the rafting activity. Judge Riley dissents.  

Christopher Casady v. State of Indiana
53A01-0909-CR-431
Criminal. Rules trial court did not err in denying Casady’s motion to dismiss because he failed to show how he was harmed by the state filing additional charges and the subsequent dismissal of the original charges; the evidence was sufficient to support his convictions of 16 counts of Class D felony voyeurism; the warrants to search Casady’s camera and home were properly supported by probable cause; the trial court did not err in admitting evidence seized during execution of the warrants; Casady waived any argument that the videotapes admitted into evidence were unfairly prejudicial; and his 18-year sentence with 12 years suspended was not inappropriate.

D.C. v. K.C. (NFP)
45A03-0912-CV-609
Civil. Affirms trial court order granting modification of custody from father to mother.

John Pearson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-127
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

William Washington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1002-CR-113
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Adam L. Blake v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0912-CR-742
Criminal. Affirms conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Class B felony.

Michael Myers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1002-CR-82
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and rules the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Myers to serve the remaining 4 years of his previously suspended sentence.

Timothy L. King v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-191
Criminal. Affirms trial court ruling that King serve 8 years of his previous sentence in the Department of Correction after revocation of probation and community corrections placement.

Joshua Peter Lindsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1002-CR-318
Criminal. Affirms 35-year sentence for Class A felony attempted murder conviction, 35-year sentence for Class A felony kidnapping conviction, and 12-year sentence for Class B felony attempted escape conviction – all to be served concurrently. Rules trial court’s statement regarding victim was harmless error.

Ronald A. Manley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1002-PC-60
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Wanda A. Newbry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1002-CR-125
Criminal. Affirms 15-year sentence following a guilty plea to Class B felony delivery of cocaine, which is to run consecutive to a 15-year sentence Newbry received in a companion case.

Wanda A. Newbry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1002-CR-126  
Criminal. Affirms 15-year sentence following a guilty plea to Class B felony delivery of cocaine, which is to run consecutive to a 15-year term Newbry received in a companion case.

Angela M. (Greene) McDonald v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A01-1004-CR-165
Criminal. Affirms 3-year sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony forgery.

Christine Starbuck v. Vigo County Public Library (NFP)
93A02-1001-EX-67
Civil. Affirms order of full Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board denying Starbuck’s application for adjustment of claim.

Marvin L. Ervin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-123
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender.


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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT