ILNews

Opinions Feb. 11, 2013

February 11, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Gray v. State of Indiana
49A02-1205-CR-352
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence of Class D felony possession of cocaine, holding that the court erred in failing to allow a defendant to play a tape of an officer’s deposition that contained inconsistent statements, but that the error was harmless because other evidence at trial strongly pointed to Gray’s guilt.

Edwin Jones v. State of Indiana
49A02-1204-CR-292
Criminal. Affirms Class A misdemeanor conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, holding that Jones’ Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause were not violated because the court allowed a state trooper to testify about a certification of a breath-test machine rather than the signer of the certification.

AT&T v. Atlas Excavating, Inc. (NFP)
79A02-1207-PL-552
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s denial of AT&T’s motion for summary judgment and remands the matter to the lower court with instructions to vacate its judgment in favor of Atlas, enter a summary judgment in favor of AT&T, and conduct proceedings to determine damages.

Tammy Syers v. JKL Construction & Home Maintenance (NFP)
82A05-1205-CC-276
Civil collection. Affirms trial court’s judgment in favor of JKL Construction & Home Maintenance. Concludes JKL’s mechanic’s lien was timely filed and that the lien is not void because of an overstatement in amount.

Thomas Oakley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1204-CR-148
Criminal. Affirms five-year sentence following a guilty plea to carrying a handgun without a license, a Class C felony.

Manuel Lloyd Jamersen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1206-CR-257
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Count I child molesting, a Class A felony; and Count II attempted child molesting, a Class A felony. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Jamersen.

Ernestine Waldon, Christine Hampshire, and Vergie Small v. Donna Wilkins, MD, Joshua Williams, and Rodney Barber, and Carl Barber, Jr. (NFP)
18A02-1203-PL-222
Civil plenary. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands with instructions to reinstate Waldon’s replevin claim. Concludes the trial court properly dismissed Waldon’s claims against appellees stemming from the execution of the trial court’s demolition order under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity and immunity arising from the Indiana Tort Claims Act. However, finds the trial court erred when it dismissed Waldon’s replevin claim contained in the amended complaint.  

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to 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