ILNews

Opinions April 10, 2014

April 10, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
HRC Hotels, LLC v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division II of Marion County, Indiana, Jeffrey R. Baumgarth and The Myers Y. Cooper Company
49A04-1307-PL-313
Civil plenary. Reverses dismissal of HRC Hotels’ amended petition for judicial review, which substituted I-465 LLC as the real party in interest instead of HRC Hotels. The standing requirements under I.C. 36-7-4-1603 are procedural rather than jurisdictional, so HRC Hotels’ alleged lack of standing when the petition was filed does not deprive the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction. It should substitute I-465 LLC as a real party in interest and hear the merits of the petition for judicial review. Remands for further proceedings.

Michael Johnson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1307-CR-562
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, Class B felony rape, Class C felony battery, Class D felonies intimidation and strangulation, and Class A misdemeanor interfering with the reporting of a crime. Johnson knowing, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial on all of his charges, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying him the right to cross-examine the victim about past sexual conduct, and the state presented sufficient evidence to prove Johnson committed Class B felony rape and Class D felony intimidation. Judge Bradford concurs in result.

Monterius D. Sharp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
05A02-1306-CR-522
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class C felony escape, Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun and three counts of Class D felony intimidation.

Dawayne J. Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1309-CR-452
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

John Orville Study v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A04-1308-CR-391
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of Class B felony robbery, six counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, one count of Class D felony resisting law enforcement, one count of Class D felony pointing a firearm and one count of Class D felony auto theft.

Adam W. Powell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
38A02-1304-IF-316
Infraction. Affirms finding Powell committed Class A infraction operating a motor vehicle without financial responsibility, Class A infraction driving while suspended, Class C infraction failure to register and Class C infraction window tint in violation by a driver.

Jamie L. Strickler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A02-1308-CR-707
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to three counts of Class B felony dealing in a controlled substance under two different cause numbers.  

Richard Brown and Janet Brown v. City of Valparaiso, Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1308-PL-332
Civil plenary. Affirms order denying the Browns’ inverse condemnation claim on the merits.

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

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT