ILNews

Opinions Dec. 4, 2012

December 4, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jerry Vanzyll v. State of Indiana
34A02-1111-CR-1050
Criminal. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands to the trial court convictions of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felonies of possession of meth and possession of chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The court affirmed the drug convictions but ordered the resisting conviction vacated because it held there was insufficient evidence to prove that Vanzyll fled.

Lane Alan Schrader Trust as Trustee under the Trust Agreement dated 16th day of November, 1999, and known as Lane Alan Schrader Self-Declaration of Trust v. Larry Gilbert and Nancy J. Malecki
75A04-1112-PL-676
Civil plenary, rehearing. Affirms prior COA order that affirmed a trial court’s determination that a legal survey was defective, and restated that the trial court has three options: it may accept the original survey, reject the survey and order a new survey by a different surveyor, or order the county surveyor to mark property boundaries according to court findings based on evidence presented to the court, including previous surveys.  

James T. Mitchell v. 10th And The Bypass, LLC, and Elway, Inc.
53A01-1112-PL-593
Civil plenary, rehearing. Affirms prior COA ruling that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it vacated its interlocutory partial summary judgment for Mitchell under Indiana Trial Rule 54(B), concluding that on rehearing Mitchell attempted to adjust and supplement his original argument, which he cannot do.

Brian A. McKinney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A05-1203-CR-126
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felonies robbery and escape and Class D felony residential entry.

B.W. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-JV-421
Juvenile/criminal. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for committing acts that would constitute residential entry as a class D felony and criminal mischief as a class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

Robert E. Eastwood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
07A04-1202-CR-64
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting, Class C felony child molesting and Class D felony fondling in the presence of a minor.

Richard Eric Johnson v. Gillian Wheeler Johnson (NFP)
49A05-1202-DR-81
Domestic relations. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands to the trial court with instructions to recalculate child support and amend its order accordingly.

S.J. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-JV-147
Juvenile. Affirms commitment of S.J. as a ward of the Department of Correction following true findings for burglary and theft.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT