ILNews

Opinions Feb. 13, 2013

February 13, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jesus Uribe
11-3590
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Affirms decision granting Uribe’s motion to suppress heroin found after traffic stop. The government failed to show that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Uribe’s vehicle to investigate why its registration was tied to a white Nissan whereas the Nissan Uribe was driving was blue. Investigatory stops based on color discrepancies alone are insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Estate of Samuel L. Tolley, Deceased; First Merchants Bank, N.A. v. Duane Earl Tolley, and Betty June Tolley
52A02-1208-EU-671
Estate, unsupervised. Reverses summary judgment to the estate of Samuel Tolley. Concludes that the Due Process Clause applies to Ind. Code 29-1-7-7. Even though First Merchants had actual notice of Samuel Tolley’s death, the phone call from the attorney for the personal representatives did not meet the requirement of informing the bank of the time period for filing a claim. Remands for further proceedings.

Robert Powell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A04-1207-CR-375
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony criminal deviate conduct.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: A.C., Minor Child, K.W., Mother, and J.C., Father v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A04-1206-JT-300
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights of mother and father.

Julia Patterson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1204-CR-300
Criminal. Reverses order Patterson pay $50 supplemental public defender fee and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Lee Ross v. State of Indiana (NFP)

61A01-1207-CR-306
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of Class A misdemeanor cruelty to an animal.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: T.B., M.B., and L.B., (Minor Children), and J.B., (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

02A03-1207-JT-336
Juvenile. Reverses termination of father’s parental rights and remands with instructions that the trial court enter additional findings to support its judgment.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by 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. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT