ILNews

Opinions Feb. 22, 2013

February 22, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Northeastern Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. Wabash Valley Power Association

12-2037
Vacates preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Indiana, and remands the case to the district court so it may remand it to state court. Found the federal court does not have jurisdiction because the key questions of whether the contract was valid and whether the contract was breached are not questions of federal law.

Indiana Supreme Court
K.W. v. State of Indiana
49S02-1301-JV-20
Juvenile. Affirms Court of Appeals reversal of trial court ruling designating K.W. a delinquent for resisting law enforcement, and orders the delinquency adjudication vacated. Justices held that evidence was insufficient that K.W. acted “forcibly” to resist a school resource officer when he pulled away as the officer was attempting to handcuff him.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Clematine Hollingsworth v. State of Indiana
49A02-1207-CR-617
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, holding that an amendment to the statute could not be retroactively applied.

Nathan Carl Gilbert v. State of Indiana
10A05-1204-CR-220
Criminal. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remands for resentencing of a Kentucky inmate on four counts of burglary, holding he was denied due process at his sentencing hearing when he wasn’t allowed sufficient time to prepare or properly examine his pre-sentence investigation report. The court held that the “anti-shuffling” provision of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers was not violated when Gilbert was returned to Kentucky before his sentencing hearing could be held in Indiana because the proceeding did not constitute a trial as defined under that provision.

Joshua King v. State of Indiana

49A02-1204-CR-351
Criminal. Affirms King’s convictions for Class C felony battery, Class A misdemeanor battery, and Class D felony strangulation and remands for correction of the Abstract of Judgment which incorrectly lists King’s second battery conviction as a Class C felony. Ruled the court did not violate King’s rights under the Confrontation Clause when it admitted testimony given by a police officer based on statements from the victim. Also found the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted recordings of calls of King discussing the crime from jail.

John Kennendy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1206-CR-450
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Shawn W. Nicosin v. William J. Mesaeh and Loretta D. Mesaeh (NFP)

11A01-1207-MI-308
Miscellaneous/grandparent visitation. Reverses and remands the trial court’s grant of visitation of G.N. with her maternal grandparents, holding that the court erred by deviating from the requirements established in In re Guardianship of A.L.C., 902 N.E.2d 343, 356 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

Kelvin Hampton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A04-1209-CR-483
Criminal. Reverses and remands a denial of request for return of $146 in $1 bills and a photograph seized during a search of his residence, holding there was no indication the state instigated civil forfeiture proceedings.

Kevin Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1205-PC-264
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief on convictions of Class A felony rape and criminal deviate conduct, Class B felony criminal confinement and Class C felony sexual battery.

Pablo C. Gallo v. Sandra Moira Hyland (NFP)
79A02-1207-DR-624
Domestic relations. Reverses and remands the trial court’s distribution of marital property order with instructions that the court follow the statutory presumption of equal distribution of property or set forth its rationale for deviating from it.

The Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline.
 

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