ILNews

Opinions Jan. 21, 2014

January 21, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Lovoyne Drain
12-3684
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Affirms above-guidelines sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon. Section 4A1.3(a)(3), like every provision of the sentencing guidelines, is advisory. And the judge did not violate Drain’s right to due process by taking into account his arrest history as part of her evaluation of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a).

Indiana Supreme Court
American Cold Storage, et al. v. The City of Boonville
87S01-1303-PL-157
Civil plenary. Reverses the decision of the trial court and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Holds that the land in this case, which comprises the portion of State Road 62 included in the annexed territory, should be considered and counted as a single parcel in determining whether the remonstrating Landowners comprise 65 percent of the owners of the annexed territory.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Weist v. Kristen Dawn and State Farm Insurance Companies
49A02-1306-PL-541
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of State Farm on Weist’s complaint for monetary damages based on the direct action rule. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Dawn and remands for a trier of fact to resolve whether she is equitably estopped from asserting the defense that the statute of limitations bars Weist’s claim.

In the Matter of the Petition for Temporary Protective Order: A.N. v. K.G.
49A04-1212-PO-649
Protective order. Affirms order of contempt in favor of K.G. The trial court did not improperly act as an advocate and therefore did not deny A.N. her due process right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. Judge Robb concurs in separate opinion.

Terry Berry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-583
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Christopher Jethroe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1304-CR-155
Criminal. Remands with instructions to the trial court to revise the sentence on the Class C felony dealing in marijuana conviction downward to a term of imprisonment within the range authorized by the Class C felony sentencing statute. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of school property.

Tievon N. Nichols v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1307-CR-293
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 50-year executed sentence following guilty plea to one count of Class A felony burglary, two counts of Class B felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon and one count of Class B felony criminal confinement.

Brandon M. Ebeyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-372
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: N.I., the minor child, and K.I., the mother, K.I. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
91A04-1305-JT-244
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Smita Radhakrishnan v. Access Therapies, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1303-PL-202
Civil plenary. Reverses award of $32,237.60 in damages plus costs for a breach of contract and remands for further proceedings. Affirms dismissal of Radhakrishnan’s counterclaim requesting attorney fees and costs.

Charles E. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1304-CR-164
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of denial of motion to correct error following denial of motion for jail time credit.

Edward Zaragoza v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1209-CR-744
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felonies murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, conspiracy to commit burglary, attempted robbery and burglary; Class D felonies conspiracy to commit theft and theft; and Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as well as determination Zaragoza is a habitual offender.

Darrell Kirkwood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1305-CR-209
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of previously suspended sentence.

VPR Properties, LLC and Purna Veer and Radhika Veer v. Affiliated Foot Care Clinic, PC (NFP)
10A04-1304-PL-177
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Affiliated Foot Care Clinic after it filed a breach of contract action against VPR properties.

Timothy J. Padgett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
51A01-1305-CR-228
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Donald Ware v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-PC-370
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.
 

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