ILNews

Opinions Aug. 26, 2010

August 26, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
John M. Stephenson v. Bill Wilson, Superintendent of Indiana State Prison
09-2924
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Civil. Stephenson failed to carry his burden of proving prejudice, even on the premise that his counsel should have objected to the stun belt. The question of prejudice from Stephenson being required to wear the stun belt at the penalty hearing will require further consideration of the District Court on remand.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.G.; Z.G. v. Marion County DCS and Child Advocates Inc.  
49A04-1002-JT-75
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights. Mother’s due process rights weren’t violated, the trial court didn’t commit reversible error in the exclusion of evidence, and DCS presented clear and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s judgment.

Dean V. Kruse Foundation, Inc., et al. v. Jerry W. Gates
59A01-1001-CT-125
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Gates on the breach-of-contract claims and the denial of the Kruse parties’ cross-motion for summary judgment on Gates’ fraud and conversion claims. Gates failed to complete the sale within a reasonable time due to no fault of the seller so his earnest money deposit is forfeited. Remands for further proceedings to determine the damage award in favor of the Kruse parties and grant summary judgment in favor of them on the issues of breach of contract, fraud, and conversion.

Tony O. Girdler v. State of Indiana
73A01-1001-CR-14
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony auto theft. The state proved all the elements of auto theft against Girdler, even though he was not the original thief of the van.

Anthony E. Frink v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1002-PC-150
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Antonio Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1002-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation ordered following Moore’s guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Pierre E. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-0912-CR-730
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and 175-year aggregate sentence for murder and four counts of Class A felony attempted murder.

Jeremy James Barden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1002-CR-64
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident but remands for correction of sentence.

Michael Pugh v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A05-1002-CR-90
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary.

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