ILNews

Opinions April 23, 2012

April 23, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Richard Leggs v. State of Indiana
49A02-1105-CR-522
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for one count of Class B felony criminal confinement and one count each of Class C felony intimidation, Class C felony criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Reverses one count of Class B felony criminal confinement, due to the continuing crime doctrine and remands for resentencing.

Nathan Abernathy v. Larry Bertram and Keith Broyles
33A04-1106-CC-317
Civil collection. Affirms trial court’s decision to omit the value of Abernathy’s crop insurance policy in the amount of damages it ordered Broyles to pay. Holds the trial court did not err when it denied Abernathy’s conversion claim because he did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Broyles and Bertram intended to exercise unauthorized control over Abernathy’s property.

Omni Insurance Group v. Lake Poage, Tonya Poage, Cody Bauer, Jill Bauer, Gary Bauer, and Allstate Insurance Company
92A03-1105-CT-208
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of the appellees, holding that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether a teen was a resident of his mother’s household at the time of a crash and insured under her auto policy. Remands for trial.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.L.; P.L. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A04-1110-JT-625
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Michael Rimschneider v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1105-CR-414
Criminal. Affirms denial of request to withdraw guilty plea.

Rodney D. Bledsoe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1105-CR-442
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated, Class C infraction driving left of center, Class D felony possession of cocaine, and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

John A. Hawkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1108-PC-424
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In Re: The Marriage of Brenda S. Sanders and Paul R. Sanders, Paul R. Sanders v. Brenda S. Sanders (NFP)
76A03-1107-DR-398
Domestic relation. Affirms division of marital property and denies Brenda Sanders’ request for appellate attorney fees.

Jamal Rasheed Southern v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1107-CR-298
Criminal. Affirms denial of request for credit time.

In Re: The Marriage of Noelle Christine Green and Prentiss Lamont Green; Noelle Christine Green v. Prentiss Lamont Green (NFP)
49A02-1110-DR-932
Domestic relation. Dismisses appeal of magistrate’s entry regarding child support modification.

LBJA Investments, LLC v. Brian Kamuf and William K. Saalwaechter (NFP)
74A05-1105-PL-307
Civil plenary. Affirms court’s striking of portions of LBJA Investments’ motion for summary judgment, denial of its motion for summary judgment and grant of summary judgment in favor of Saalwaechter.

Alan Dwayne Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1110-CR-517
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies criminal recklessness and intimidation.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.K., F.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
57A03-1108-JT-374
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

 

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT