Opinions May 7, 2014

May 7, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Mayor Gregory Ballard v. Maggie Lewis, John Barth, and Vernon Brown
Civil plenary. Reverses partial summary judgment to Maggie Lewis, holding Mayor Greg Ballard is entitled to summary judgment on redistricting ordinance issue. Justices exercise judicial restraint and leave redistricting in the hands of the two branches of local government responsible for the task. Also reverses any order requiring Ballard to pay part of the cost of a master brought in on the issue.

In the Matter of: Christopher E. Haigh 
Discipline. Haigh engaged in conduct in contempt of the Supreme Court by violating the suspension order. He is disbarred effective immediately and must pay $1,000. Any further contempt will likely result in imprisonment.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Shane Beal and The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Company v. Edwin Blinn, Jr.
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Beal’s motion for summary judgment, which concluded that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Beal’s representation of Blinn Jr. in a federal criminal case constituted legal malpractice.

John Jacob Venters v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses sentence for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, as a Class D felony, enhanced by the habitual substance offender statute. Remands with instructions to order Venters’ enhanced sentence to run concurrently with his previously enhanced sentences. The trial court erred in ordering the sentence at issue to be served consecutively to his previously entered sentences.

Rahsaan A. Johnson v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of 14 counts of possession of animals for fighting contests, all as Class D felonies. There is sufficient evidence to support the convictions and they do not violate the double jeopardy clause of the Indiana Constitution.

Johnathon R. Aslinger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Grants rehearing for the limited purpose of ordering a retrial on Aslinger’s conviction for possession of paraphernalia. Affirms original opinion in all respects.

Ricky Allen Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft and remands for a determination of the credit time to which Cox is entitled.  

J&W Construction, Inc. v. Duffy Tool & Stamping, LTD, LLC, et al. (NFP)
Civil tort. Affirms orders dismissing J&W’s motion for proceeding supplement and its motion to correct error.

Robert F. Petty v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of voluntary manslaughter, Class D felony removal of body from scene and Class D felony obstruction of justice.

Claude F. Hudson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses denial of credit time and remands with instructions to award Hudson credit time from Oct. 15, 2012, to Dec. 27, 2012, when he was confined at a hospital.

Larry Fulbright v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses denial of petition to file a belated notice of appeal.

Indiana Tax Court
MedCo Health Solutions, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
Tax. Grants the department’s Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. Medco is not entitled to relief on two claims: that the court should order the department to pay a refund and that advisory letters should be binding in this matter.

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



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.