ILNews

Opinions Aug. 8, 2012

August 8, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Michael J. Alexander v. Mark McKinney
11-3539
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Chief Judge Richard Young.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of criminal defense attorney Michael Alexander’s lawsuit against Mark McKinney alleging violations of due process after finding McKinney, former Delaware County prosecutor, was entitled to qualified immunity because the complaint did not identify a depravation of a cognizable constitutional right. Alexander’s complaint is merely an attempt to recast an untimely false arrest claim into a due process claim.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Justin C. Woodhouse v. State of Indiana (NFP)
08A05-1111-PC-614
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Ty Evans v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1112-PC-697
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

John Harrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
70A01-1112-CR-590
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony possession of stolen property.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.T.K., K.C., & K.R.K. (Minor Children) and T.K. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
15A01-1201-JT-14
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Derek Patton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
09A02-1111-CR-1046
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies criminal confinement and aggravated battery.

Jerry Moss v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1112-CR-1148
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections.

Dorothy Miller, et al. v. City of Mishawaka, et al. (NFP)
71A03-1201-PL-3
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Dorothy Miller’s complaint for declaratory relief and the judgment entered in favor of the city of Mishawaka, city planner Kenneth Prince and associate city planner Peg Strantz regarding the enforcement of a city ordinance regulating signs. Denies the city’s request for appellate attorney fees.

Jaron Yancey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1112-CR-695
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT