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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT