ILNews

Opinions Sept. 28, 2011

September 28, 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
Desmond Turner v. State of Indiana
49S00-0912-CR-565
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder, criminal confinement, robbery and burglary, and the sentence of life in prison without parole for the murder convictions, plus a term of years for the other convictions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting firearms and tool mark examiner Michael Putzek’s testimony, and the admission of challenged testimony did not violate Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b). The trial court erred in admitting testimony on a statement made by Turner’s mother, but that does not require reversal.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of T.N., Alleged to be CHINS; G.N. v. IDCS, and Child Advocates, Inc.
49A05-1101-JC-15
Juvenile. Reverses determination that T.N. is a child in need of services. The trial court violated father G.N.’s right to due process. Remands for further proceedings.

M Jewell, LLC v. Max M. Powell and Marion School Employees Federal Credit Union
27A02-1101-MI-47
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of M Jewell LLC’s petition for an order directing the auditor of Grant County to issue a tax deed. The trial court determined that Max Powell was prejudicially misled by the incomplete information given to him by the treasurer’s office, and that determination supports the piercing of the statutory rules to prevent injustice.

In Re: Larry L. Thompson Revocable Trust; Deanna Thompson Stull v. Larry L. Thompson Revocable Trust, Derek Thompson, and Vicki Thompson Craver
54A01-1011-TR-592
Trust. Affirms judgment in favor of Larry L. Thompson Revocable Trust, Derek Thompson and Vicki Thompson Craver on Deanna Thompson Stull’s motion to correct errors and motion to amend petition in equity to conform to evidence. The trial court did not err by barring Deanna from raising the issues of her equitable claim that were implicitly decided in a prior appeal. Denies the appellees’ request for appellate attorney fees.

K.S. v. B.W.
22A05-1102-DR-79
Domestic relation. Reverses order granting ex-boyfriend B.W. visitation with K.S.’s daughter. Affirms denial of K.S.’s request for attorney fees. The trial court’s decision to grant B.W. visitation as a de facto parent was contrary to law. B.W. is not the biological father.

Robert Endris v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Fellon-McCord Associates (NFP)
9302-1101-EX-48
Agency appeal. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

Brett Zagorac v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1011-CR-589
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

Telisa Arnold v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-CR-20
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT