ILNews

Opinions Aug. 10, 2010

August 10, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jermarcus Robinson
09-3955
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Criminal. Affirms conviction of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The District Court correctly refused to suppress the cocaine police officers pulled from Robinson’s buttocks after a traffic stop. The officer wasn’t satisfied with his initial effort to pat down Robinson and was justified to return to finish the job within the bounds outlined in Terry.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joey Wilson v. State of Indiana
49A02-1001-CR-60
Criminal. Affirms convictions of receiving stolen auto parts as a Class C felony and driving while suspended as a Class A misdemeanor. Wilson waived for review his argument that the trial court erred in allowing the state to amend the charging information on the day before his trial was to begin. He failed to request a continuance to prepare for his defense. Wilson also failed to prove that the admission of his unredacted BMV record made it impossible for him to receive a fair trial.

Indiana Spine Group v. Pilot Travel Centers
93A02-1003-EX-315
Civil. Reverses dismissal by the Full Worker’s Compensation Board of ISG’s claim pursuant to Indiana Code Section 22-3-3-27. The two-year statute of limitations in that statue doesn’t apply. Remands for determination on the merits of ISG’s application for adjustment of claim for provider fee.

City of Indianapolis v. Cynthia Hicks on behalf of and as next friend of Jada Richards, a minor
49A02-1002-CT-95
Civil tort. Affirms nunc pro tunc order granting Hicks’ motion to correct error and reinstating her negligence suit brought against the City of Indianapolis on behalf of her minor child. The city waived any challenge based on the magistrate’s lack of authority to sign the order by not objecting until after time for ruling on the motion to correct error expired. The CCS entries provide a sufficient basis to later issue the order. The grant of the motion to correct error wasn’t an abuse of discretion because the city didn’t show noncompliance with the tort claim notice requirements of the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

Ryan Armstrong v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1002-CR-107
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and Class A misdemeanors possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia.

Roosevelt Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0911-PC-1124
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Timothy A. Stevens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-0912-CR-723
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class C felonies forgery, and fraud on a financial institution, and three counts of Class D felony theft.

Thompson Thrift Construction Inc. v. Bank of Indiana, N.A. (NFP)
84A05-1001-PL-24
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Bank of Indiana in Thompson Thrift Construction’s attempt to foreclose its mechanic’s lien on a parcel of real estate on which the bank held three mortgages.

Indiana Spine Group v. Scenic Hills Care Center (NFP)
93A02-1003-EX-313
Civil. Reverses dismissal by the Worker’s Compensation Board of ISG’s application for adjustment of claim for provider fee. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Spine Group v. All Seasons Holdings (NFP)
93A02-1003-EX-316
Civil. Reverses dismissal by the Worker’s Compensation Board of ISG’s application for adjustment of claim for provider fee. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT