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. 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