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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT