ILNews

Opinions Feb. 16, 2011

February 16, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jeff Whitely, et al. v. Anthony Moravec, et al.
09-3302
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge David F. Hamilton.
Civil. Plaintiffs sued an Indiana company incorporated in New York to satisfy the penalty claims after the Indiana company entered into bankruptcy and was late paying wages and fringe benefits. Affirms the District Court correctly concluded that New York Bus. Corp. L. Section 630(a) doesn’t make defendants liable for a penalty under Indiana law.

Indiana Supreme Court
Jeffrey Tharp v. State of Indiana
49S02-1005-CR-256
Criminal. Reverses Tharp’s conviction of invasion of privacy. The evidence is insufficient that he received adequate notice of the protective order.

Richard Joslyn v. State of Indiana
49S04-1102-CR-85
Criminal. Affirms Joslyn’s convictions of stalking and invasion of privacy. The minor defect in the service of a protective order was cured by Joslyn’s statements to police and his testimony at trial that he found the protective order at his residence.

Indiana Court of Appeals
James M. Thompson, D.O. v. Amy Gerowitz, et al.
49A05-1005-CT-296
Civil tort. Affirms the trial court properly denied Dr. Thompson’s motion for judgment on the evidence on the issue of causation. Thompson waived his argument regarding judgment on the evidence on the issue of informed consent because he raised it for the first time on appeal. Orders a new trial based on the allegations of juror misconduct and bias.

Don J. Herrington Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1008-CR-924
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony intimidation.

Keith Hopkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1007-CR-426
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

D'Wan Maxwell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1006-CR-622
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

SS Enterprise v. La Joya Apartment, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1005-CC-592
Civil collections. Affirms dismissal with prejudice of SS Enterprise’s complaint against La Joya Apartment.

Barbara L. Earle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
26A01-1005-CR-250
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for murder.

Joey Addison v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-354
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

Emily R. Meyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A05-1007-CR-425
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder.

Timothy Allen Anderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1007-CR-436
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Tony Lee Parish v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1006-CR-398
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary and sentences for that conviction, Class B felony conspiracy to commit robbery, and Class B felony robbery.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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