ILNews

Opinions Nov. 8, 2012

November 8, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jerome Michael Burton v. State of Indiana
45A03-1201-CR-6
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to dismiss the charge of failure to register as a sex offender. Remands with instructions. Wallace applies and the ex post facto provision of the Indiana Constitution prevents the application of Indiana’s Sex Offender Registry Act to require Burton, a resident of Indiana, to register as a sex offender for an offense committed in Illinois in 1987.

Jeff Clade v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1206-CT-509
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Hunt Construction Group on Clade’s negligence claim and remands with instructions.

T.B. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and A.R. (NFP)
93A02-1112-EX-1143
Agency appeal. Affirms denial of request to reinstate appeal.
 
Clay R. Firestone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1201-PC-32
Post conviction. Grants petition for rehearing and reaffirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Troy Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1203-PC-152
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

F.M., Mother v. N.B., Father (NFP)
71A05-1206-JP-291
Juvenile. Reverses denial of motion to continue. Remands for a new hearing.

Brian E. Graves v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A01-1205-CR-227
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony escape.

Jason Bond, David Lear and Leslie Bridges, et al. v. Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC, Veolia Water North America Operating Service, LLC and The City of Indianapolis, Dept. of Waterworks (NFP)
49A02-1202-CC-147
Civil collection. Affirms dismissal of case for unjust enrichment, breach of contract and violation of the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Zachary A. Sebastian v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A02-1205-CR-372
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felonies reckless homicide and carrying a handgun without a license.

The City of Shelbyville, Indiana and Shelbyville Board of Works and Safety v. Frank P. and Shirlene Sundvall (NFP)
73A01-1203-PL-98
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of the city’s motion for summary judgment in an action initiated by the Sundvalls. Remands for further proceedings.

No Indiana opinions were released by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals prior to IL deadline. The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court released no opinions prior to IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT