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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT