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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT