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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT