ILNews

Opinions Feb. 1, 2011

February 1, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Derrick L. Bullock
10-2238
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Criminal. Bullock pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute at least five grams but less than fifty grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His plea was conditioned on his ability to appeal the District Court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the crack that led to his conviction. Affirms District Court ruling there was reasonable suspicion to detain Bullock during the search, probable cause existed to arrest Bullock for visiting a common nuisance under Indiana law after police found marijuana in plain view and other evidence of recurrent and widespread drug activity within the residence. His detention was lawful under principles set forth in Terry v. Ohio, and the subsequent arrest was supported by probable cause.


Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Walsh & Kelly, Inc. v. International Contractors, Inc., et al.
64A03-1006-PL-284
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Signature Properties Inc. with respect to Signature’s claim that it was not fully indemnified for its damages by a collateral assignment agreement and with respect to Signature’s claim that Walsh & Kelly slandered the title of Signature’s property. The agreement does not fully indemnify Signature such that Signature has not suffered a pecuniary loss. By filing an action to foreclose the lien instead of releasing the lien after it received notice that it was not legally entitled to file the lien, Walsh acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

L.C. v. R.C. (NFP)
23A05-1002-DR-200
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution order distributing the parties’ property, awarding primary physical custody of the children to mother R.C., and granting R.C.’s motion to relocate.

Charles Pennington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1007-CR-345
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty pleas to Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a prior conviction, Class D felony possession of a controlled substance, and Class D felony possession of a legend drug in three separate causes.

Joshua Hooten v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1006-CR-684
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

David Harrold v. Robert Thornburg, Personal Rep. of the Estate of Roland Walker (NFP)

68A05-0911-CV-671
Civil. Affirms judgment in favor of Robert Thornburg, as the personal representative of the estate of Roland J. Walker in the estate’s action against Harrold as a result of Harrold’s transfer of real estate to himself while acting as attorney-in-fact for the decedent, Roland J. Walker .

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT