ILNews

Opinions Aug. 17, 2010

August 17, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Cullen Davis Walker v. State of Indiana
71A03-1003-CR-115
Criminal. Affirms Walker’s convictions of burglary, robbery, criminal confinement – all as Class B felonies, and possession of cocaine as a Class C felony. Also affirms his sentence of 56 years. Walker argued his burglary and criminal confinement convictions should be vacated pursuant to the continuing crime doctrine because his offenses were all part of the same continuing crime since they occurred in a short period of time and facilitated his sole purpose of taking things from people at one house. The court ruled each offense was a distinct chargeable crime. Remands with instructions to correct clerical errors in the amended judgment and chronological case summary.

Paternity of M.B., N.B. v. J.W. (NFP)
45A03-0911-PL-536
Civil. Affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands. Rules the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sua sponte modifying the prior child-support order to reflect the mother was not providing overnight parenting time; remands for the court to adjust its order modifying the amount of support owed by mother so that it is prospective in nature only. Also rules the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to enforce parenting time because it used its discretionary authority to threaten M.B. and his father with sanctions if M.B. failed to participate in parenting time. It also didn’t abuse its discretion by designating a mid-point for the mother and M.B. to meet for parenting time and by ordering mother to pay dental bills incurred because of her authorization of dental work not covered by M.B.’s insurance.

Mark Stearns v. Amy Taylor-Stearns (NFP)
45A03-0908-CV-380
Civil. Affirms order to strike husband’s motions he filed after court-ordered deadline, and dissolution court did not abuse its discretion finding in husband in contempt and imposing sanction for willful breach of settlement agreement.

In re the Guardianship of C.J.; T.J. v. K.M. (NFP)
27A02-1002-GU-150
Guardianship. Affirms grant of mother K.M.’s petition to terminate stepmother’s guardianship of son, C.J., after the father’s death.

Terry D. McClinton, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-0912-CR-712
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence of 28 years for two counts of Class B felony robbery and one count of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Breondon D. Pinkson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1002-CR-146
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation, noting Pinkson was properly notified.

Golden Cummings v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1252
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

Isidro Lopez-Ruiz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-0912-CR-707
Criminal. Affirms 48-year sentence for convictions of two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Earl Lee Russelburg v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1002-CR-113
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for leave to file a belated notice of appeal.

Kenneth Ramey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1001-CR-5
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT