Opinions Feb. 1, 2011

February 1, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Derrick L. Bullock
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.
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)
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)
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)

Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

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

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.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?