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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT