ILNews

Opinions April 10, 2013

April 10, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Kevin B. McCarthy, et al., and Langsenkamp Family Apostolate, et al. v. Patricia Ann Fuller, et al.
12-2157, 12-2257, 12-2262
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. The District Court’s denial of McCarthy’s motion that the court take judicial notice of the Holy See’s rulings on Fuller’s status in the Roman Catholic Church is reversed, with a reminder to the district court that federal courts are not empowered to decide (or to allow juries to decide) religious questions. The other two appeals are dismissed.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Valentin Escobedo v. State of Indiana
71A03-1202-CR-60
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class A felony battery and Class D felony neglect of a dependent. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Dr. Stephens to testify while limiting his testimony or in allowing the state to present rebuttal evidence.

Harold Haggerty v. Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Merom Generating Station
77A01-1206-CT-293
Civil tort. Affirms grant of summary judgment to Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative Inc. on Haggerty’s negligence claim. Hoosier Energy successfully negated the element of duty in Haggerty’s negligence claim.

In the Matter of A.W. & C.S., Children in Need of Services; and L.D., Mother v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1208-JC-692
Juvenile. Affirms determination that the two minor children are children in need of services.

Jake E. Estes v. State of Indiana (NFP)

39A01-1205-CR-214
Criminal.  Affirms conviction and sentence for dealing in marijuana as a Class D felony. Reverses and remands with instructions that the court vacate Estes’ conviction of possession of marijuana as a Class D felony based on double jeopardy principles. Judge Bailey dissents.

Timothy Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A04-1211-PC-591
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jeff Rolston and Jana Rolston v. Brad's Realty and Property Management, LLC, and Dan L. Bradbury (NFP)
20A04-1209-CC-489
Civil collection. Affirms denial of the Rolstons’ motion to correct error on the judgment denying their claim for fraud, and the denial of Brad’s Realty’s motion to have the Rolstons pay attorney fees.

Demetrius Damon Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1205-CR-230
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony rape, Class B felony criminal confinement enhanced because of the use of a firearm, Class D felony criminal recklessness, Class B felony robbery, Class A felony burglary, two counts of Class D felony theft and determination Taylor is a habitual offender.

Kevin Hester v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-CR-381
Criminal. Affirms sentence for murder.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT