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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT