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. 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