ILNews

Opinions May 13, 2014

May 13, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
In re Mental Health Actions for A.S., Sara Townsend
10S01-1402-MH-113
Mental health. Reverses finding that Sara Townsend was in indirect civil contempt after completing an application to initiate immediate emergency treatment for her co-worker, A.S. The trial court lacked statutory authority to find her in contempt and her actions did not place her under the trial court’s authority to impose sanctions as an inherent power of the judiciary.

McLynnerd Bond, Jr. v. State of Indiana
45S03-1309-CR-597
Criminal. Reverses denial of Bond’s motion to suppress confession to murder given after a detective implied during an interrogation that he would not receive a fair trial because of his race. This technique went too far in intentionally misleading a suspect as to his constitutionally guaranteed rights to a fair trial and impartial jury because of his race.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Daylene M. (Atchison) Coleman v. Scott A. Atchison
90A02-1311-DR-921
Domestic relation. Reverses denial of incapacity maintenance for Coleman and the equal division of the marital estate. The trial court’s judgment on the division is not supported by its finding. Remands with instructions for the dissolution court to either award her incapacity maintenance or to identify specific extenuating circumstances directly related to the statutory criteria for awarding such maintenance that would justify denying the award. Also instructs the court to award Coleman more than 50 percent of the marital estate consistent with its finding that she has rebutted the presumption of an equal division.

Antonio Beaven v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-CR-811
Criminal. Affirms adjudication as a habitual offender.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT