ILNews

Opinions July 8, 2013

July 8, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Cincinnati Life Insurance Company v. Marjorie Beyrer
12-2365
Civil plenary. Affirms District Court rulings against Marjorie Beyrer, widow of Kevin Beyrer, in a life insurance dispute. The court found no merit on the issues she appealed after she failed to be awarded proceeds from her husband’s life insurance policy that was assigned to a third party. Dismissal of some claims for failing to comply with federal pleading standards and summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati Life on other claims was not an abuse of discretion, the court ruled.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jason J. Klinker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A05-1301-CR-26
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentence of three years for Class D felony escape.

In Re: Paternity of B.B.; M.B. v. Y.M.M. (NFP)
71A04-1208-JP-447
Juvenile Paternity. Affirms juvenile court’s finding that M.B., the father, was in contempt for failing to pay certain childcare expenses and that, Y.M.M., the mother, was not in contempt of any court order regarding visitation.

Tharl Pinkston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
38A02-1210-CR-829
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of Pinkston’s probation.

Jeffrey Bowles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A02-1208-CR-654
Criminal. Affirms Bowles’ conviction for Class D felony domestic battery.

Edwin Valladares v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1211-CR-568
Criminal. Affirms Valladares’ convictions following a bench trial for five counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class C felony child molesting, and one count of Class B misdemeanor voyeurism.

Daniel Paul Foster v. State of Indiana (NFP)

53A01-1209-CR-414
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentencing of Foster to an aggregated 26 years executed in the Department of Correction: 20 years for Class B felony aggravated battery, three years each for the two counts of Class D felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a penal facility employee (to be served consecutively to each other and to the 20 year sentence for Class B felony aggravated battery), and one year for Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief (to be served concurrently to the other sentences).

In Re The Guardianship of Carlton H. Word; Timothy W. Word and Tracy L. Wise v. Rance Buehrer, Guardian of Carlton H. Word (NFP)
76A03-1209-GU-395
Guardianship. Affirms trial court’s judgment that under the terms of the June 4, 1998, second amendment to Carlton’s trust, the Zimmerman Farm must be distributed as part of the trust residuary, rather than as a specific bequest under the trust or pursuant to an undelivered, unrecorded deed.

Christopher Long v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1211-CR-480
Criminal. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of Long’s petition for post-conviction relief.

Terrence Boyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1210-CR-498
Criminal. Affirms Boyd’s conviction, after a bench trial, for battery as a Class B misdemeanor.

Benjamen Benjamen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1210-CR-524
Criminal. Affirms Benjamen’s conviction for resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT