ILNews

Opinions May 21, 2014

May 21, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jacob Herron v. State of Indiana
56A03-1306-CR-210
Criminal. Reverses convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony receiving stolen property. The jury may have relied on the impeachment evidence as substantive evidence in this case. Remands for retrial, if the state chooses. Judge Riley dissents in part, finding enough circumstantial evidence to convict Herron.

Tierra Rae Pierson, a Minor, Deceased, by her next friend and parent, Betina Pierson, and Betina Pierson, Individually, and Ryan Pierson, Individually v. Service America Corporation, et al.
49A02-1307-CT-561
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Centerplate on the Piersons’ negligence claim. Reasonable inferences to be drawn from the designated materials could permit a fact-finder to conclude that a Centerplate designee served Gaff beer while knowing him to be visibly intoxicated. Gaff later drove while intoxicated and struck and killed Tierra Rae Pierson. As Centerplate did not, based upon undisputed facts, negate an element of the negligence claim, summary judgment was improvidently granted.

Wayne Hurd v. State of Indiana
49A02-1309-CR-753
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery and the decision to exclude Hurd’s mother as a witness. Reverses imposition of a probation condition that Hurd not go within a nearly 2-mile radius of 38th and College in Indianapolis. Remands with instructions to vacate any pending probation violations based upon that condition. The trial court abused its discretion in imposing that condition because it was not reasonably related to his treatment and the protection of the public safety.  

Jeremy Lyn Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1307-CR-670
Criminal. Affirms seven-year sentence for Class C felony battery by means of a deadly weapon.

Brice L. Webb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1305-CR-263
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Brandan L. Martin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A02-1311-CR-966
Criminal. Affirms four-year sentence for Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Tina Cox v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1309-CR-447
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of methamphetamine.

In the Matter of: J.J., F.J., J.O., & C.O., Minor Children, and M.O., Mother v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
06A01-1310-JC-479
Juvenile. Affirms determination that the four children are children in need of services.

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
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