ILNews

Opinions Feb. 11, 2011

February 11, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Mouhamadou M. Sow v. Fortville Police Department, et al.
10-2188
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young
Civil. Affirms District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the Fortville Police Department, Officer Michael Fuller of the Fortville Police Department, and the McCordsville Police Department. Sow’s action was brought under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983, 1985, and 1986 after he was arrest for forgery but the charges were later dropped. Sow also alleged numerous state law claims, asserting that the District Court had supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

The Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of Patrick K. Rocchio
98S00-0911-DI-533
Discipline. Suspends Rocchio from the practice of law for at least 180 days without automatic reinstatement. He was charged with violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 7.2(c)(3) and 5.5(b)(2), but found to also have violated 7.2(d)(2), 7.3(c). His conduct during the disciplinary process demonstrates his inability to recognize his clear violations of this state's disciplinary rules, his contempt for those rules and this disciplinary process, and his lack of appreciation for the role of the court's hearing officer and Disciplinary Commission members and staff led to his suspension without automatic reinstatement. Justice Rucker dissents to length of suspension.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Amir H. Sanjari v. State of Indiana
20A03-1007-CR-384
Criminal. Vacates Sanjari’s conviction and five-year sentence on his second count of Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent due to double jeopardy constraints. Affirms his conviction of and five-year sentence for the first count of Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent, with fines, costs, and restitution.

Alexander R. Pala v. Annare L. Pala Loubser
91A05-1004-DR-271
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of Loubser’s motion to terminate maintenance award. Based upon review of the record, the appellate court can’t say that the evidence leaves them with the firm conviction that a mistake was made or that the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.

T.L. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development
93A02-1007-EX-773
Civil. Reverses and remands denial of T.L.’s motion to reinstate his appeal from an adverse determination of his claim for unemployment benefits. The following issue was presented for review: whether the board abused its discretion by adopting the findings and conclusions of the director, thereby affirming the denial of the request to reinstate T.L.’s appeal.

P.K.E. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and D.Z.
93A02-1007-EX-799
Civil. Affirms administrative law judge’s decision that P.K.E. had not discharged D.Z. for just cause and D.Z. was therefore entitled to unemployment benefits. The review board affirmed the ALJ’s decision and P.K.E. appealed.

David Martinez Zarate v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-1007-CR-356
Criminal. Affirms sentence for conviction of dealing in cocaine, a Class B felony.

Juan Salazar-Arvisu v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-0908-PC-379
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Anthony A. Coffey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1006-CR-753
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

William T. Sexton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1005-CR-352
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B misdemeanor false informing and Class D felony attempting to acquire a legend drug by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or subterfuge.

Robert W. Gard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1004-CR-249
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s grant of the state’s motion for relief from order, which set aside its previous order granting Gard’s motion to suppress.

Michael J. Huffman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1003-PC-421
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Paternity of C.F.; Rita K. Manns v. Richard A. Faler (NFP)
37A04-1009-JP-573
Juvenile. Reverses and remands order of the trial court emancipating Manns’ son and terminating the support obligation of Faler.

William E. Cathey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1006-CR-314
Criminal. Affirms sentence following convictions of two counts of Class D felony theft.

Candace Brewer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1008-CR-1024
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of a controlled substance.

Donald R. Tweedy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1007-CR-327
Criminal. Affirms convictions of maintaining a common nuisance as a Class D felony, and driving while suspended as a Class A misdemeanor.

David Alan Davis Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1005-CR-648
Criminal. Reverses termination from the Madison County Drug Court Program and remands with instructions.

Michael Todd Hughes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1008-CR-891
Criminal. Affirms denial of Hughes’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

James E. McGee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1007-CR-413
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of child molesting as Class A felonies.

Kenneth L. Duckworth Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A04-1009-CR-543
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s finding Duckworth is a habitual offender following his three convictions for dealing in a controlled substance, one as a Class A felony and the other two as Class B felonies.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before 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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT