ILNews

Opinions Nov. 15, 2012

November 15, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
The following Indiana opinion was issued after IL deadline Wednesday:
U.S. v. Christopher L. Laraneta
2:10-cr-00013-RL-PRC-1
Criminal. Affirms 30-year prison sentence for conviction of seven violations of federal child pornography laws, and affirms monetary damages for victims, but orders that one victim’s judgment be reduced by the amount she has received in restitution from other cases. The appellate court also vacated the restitution order, requiring first a determination of whether Laraneta uploaded victim images.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Derek Asklar and Pauline Asklar v. David Gilb, Paul Garrett Smith d/b/a P.H. One Trucking, Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co., d/b/a Zurich; Travelers Ideminity Co. of America
02A03-1204-CT-170
Civil tort/insurance. Affirms in part and reverses in part the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Empire, holding that Indiana law rather than Georgia law should apply in the case, but determining that Empire’s uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage limit is still only $75,000, as the trial court ruled.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.P. & Au.P.; M.H. & T.P. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
77A01-1202-JT-59
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights, holding that the trial court’s findings support its conclusion that there was a reasonable probability that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the children’s well being.

Derek Clanton v. State of Indiana
49A02-1203-CR-198
Criminal. Reverses the trial court denial of a motion to suppress evidence discovered by an off-duty officer during a stop and frisk. The court found although the officer was off duty, he was acting in accordance with his training and therefore was not entitled to continue the search after he determined the suspect was not carrying a weapon.   

Kurt E. Hinkle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A05-1204-CR-199
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Jeffery Evans v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-CR-115
Criminal. Affirms conviction of four counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: B.T. (Minor Child), and B.J.T. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A05-1107-JT-710
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT