ILNews

Opinions April 15, 2014

April 15, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Marcus Henderson
13-2483
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress and conviction of being a drug user in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3). Rejects Henderson’s argument that the firearms were discovered pursuant to an unconstitutional search because the protective sweep of his home was unreasonable. The record is replete with specific and articulable facts which the SWAT officers reasonably relied upon to conclude that the officers or others faced a dangerous situation without a protective sweep of his house.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lucas H. Jackson v. State of Indiana
62A04-1311-CR-563
Criminal. Reverses revocation of probation. The trial court abused its discretion by revoking the probation because it could not determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Jackson had actually committed a new criminal offense.

Tammy Carter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-CR-752
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class D felony neglect of a dependent.  

Edrece Bryant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1309-CR-806
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony strangulation and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Antrone Crockett v. Clair Barnes and Mark Sevier (NFP)
52A05-1306-PL-304
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Barnes and Sevier on inmate Crockett’s claim that the defendants denied him access to the courts.

Patricia Leslie v. Liberty Dialysis, Inc., Liberty Dialysis-Lebanon, LLC., Witham Memorial Hospital, and NLMP, Inc. (NFP)
06A01-1309-CT-400
Civil tort. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. Because the designated evidence supports a reasonable inference that Leslie slipped on ice, the grant of summary judgment for Liberty was improper. As for Witham and NLMP, however, Leslie has made no argument that they were not entitled to summary judgment on the alternate theories relating to immunity and lack of duty. In the absence of any such argument, she has not established that the entry of summary judgment for Witham and NLMP was improper.

Mark Conner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1308-CR-355
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony theft and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief and the finding Conner is a habitual offender. Remands for trial court to correct the sentencing order and abstract of judgment.

Lloyd W. Mezick v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1307-CR-649
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in a community corrections program.

Regina Choice v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1306-CR-227
Criminal. Affirms two-year sentence for Class D felony theft.

Kenton T. Winder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A04-1309-CR-461
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felonies robbery and criminal confinement as well as Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. Remands with instructions to correct the abstract of judgment.

Jason R. Barton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1307-CR-355
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for immediate discharge from unlawful and illegal imprisonment.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court did not post any opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT