Opinions Feb. 11, 2014

February 11, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Michael Inman v. State of Indiana
Life without parole. Affirms conviction and sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility for parole for murder, murder while committing or attempting to commit the offense of robbery, robbery, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felony. Justice Mark Massa concurred in result but found the trial court’s instruction to the jury was harmless.  

Paul Stieler Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Harbor Bay, et al. v. City of Evansville and Evansville Common Council; VFW Post 2953, et al. v. City of Evansville and Evansville Common Council
82S01-1306-CT-436 and 82S01-1306-PL-437
Civil. Strikes down an amended Evansville smoking ban that exempted the Aztar riverboat casino in a 3-2 decision. Chief Justice Brent Dickson and Justices Mark Massa and Steven David held that the exception violated Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution because it conferred a privilege on the casino that wasn’t extended to similarly situated bars, taverns and clubs. Dissenting Justices Loretta Rush and Robert Rucker found the casino’s inherent characteristics of producing a large flow of revenue and attracting a mostly out-of-town clientele placed it in a distinct group from the tavern and club establishment that challenged the exemption.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeff Howell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of renewed motion for return of property.
Patricia A. Hampton and Joseph A. Hampton, individually as husband and wife; et al v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms granting of Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co.’s motion for summary judgment.

Mayson L. St. Clair v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms robbery conviction as a Class B felony.

Stephen T. Perosky v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions and nine-year aggregated sentence for disarming a law enforcement officer as a Class C felony; two counts of battery as Class D felonies; and two counts of resisting law enforcement as Class D felonies.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of N.M., A.M. and H.M., minor children, and J.M. Father, J.M. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of J.M.’s (father) parental rights to his children N.M., A.M. and H.M.

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of H.R. (Minor Child) and J.N. (Mother) and M.R. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of J.N.’s (mother) and M.R.’s (father) parental relationship with their minor child, H.R. Judge John Baker wrote a separate opinion, concurring with the majority but finding the termination appeared to be about punishing the parents rather than protecting the child.

Richard Boylls v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction for dealing in methamphetamine as a Class B felony.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues