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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT