ILNews

Opinions Aug. 11, 2011

August 11, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Westville Correctional Facility, et al. v. George Finney
49A05-1103-PL-92
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of Finney’s verified petition for judicial review. Westville has not shown that the reviewing court committed reversible error. It is clear from the record that the agency’s action was without evidentiary foundation, let alone substantial evidence as required by Ind. Code 4-21.5-5-14(d)(5).

Shepherd Properties Co. v. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 91
49A04-1010-PL-676
Civil plenary. Grants rehearing for the limited purpose of expanding upon the discussion of the issue presented on appeal concerning the propriety of an award of attorney fees under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act. The appellate court doesn’t disagree with the union’s contention, or prior observations from the court, that APRA does not include language explicitly precluding attorney fees from a third party. Conversely, APRA does not include language providing for payment of attorney fees by an intervenor, and the judges declined to write into the statute such a provision.

Karl Driver v. State of Indiana
71A05-1012-PC-795
Post conviction. Affirms denial of Driver’s verified motion to vacate judgment. Driver gained actual knowledge of the judgment when the trial court sent him a copy Sept. 7, 2010, but he did not file his motion until Oct. 29, 2010, which was outside the 30-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal.

Bradley A. Hole v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A01-1012-CR-680
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for pre-trial jail credit time.

James Clint Lawson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

31A01-1012-CR-627
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Class D felony strangulation, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, and Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

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