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. 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