ILNews

Opinions Feb. 21, 2012

February 21, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Herbert Yanez v. State of Indiana
49A02-1104-CR-362
Criminal. Reverses conviction of possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor and remands for further proceedings. There was no evidence presented as to why Yanez was stopped and the evidence presented didn’t establish the reasonableness of the state’s actions. Judge Barnes concurs in result in a separate opinion.

State of Indiana v. Christopher Vickers
88A05-1106-PC-317
Post conviction. Reverses grant of post-conviction relief to Vickers. The court erred by concluding that Vickers had not knowingly waived his right to counsel.

Paul K. Ogden v. Stephen Robertson, et al.
49A05-1101-CT-45
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of defendants Robertson, et al., with respect to Ogden’s wrongful termination claim. The trial court did not err in finding that the Indiana Department of Insurance defendants did not violate Ogden’s rights under Article I, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution, that Ogden did not derive due process rights from Executive Order 05-14, and Ogden improperly failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

In Re: Indiana Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a The Indianapolis Star, Jeffrey M. Miller & Cynthia S. Miller v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, Inc.; Jennifer Burk; et al.
49A02-1103-PL-234
Civil plenary. Remands to trial court to apply modified Dendrite test to determine if the Indianapolis Star must provide information to Jeffrey Miller that would identify an anonymous online commenter.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.C. and K.M., Jr.; J.C. (Mother), B.D.T. (Father of K.C.) and K.M., Sr. (Father of K.M., Jr.) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
20A03-1107-JT-314
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Charles Duncan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A03-1110-CR-446
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony child molesting.

John Q. Lloyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1105-CR-270
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

Michael Lee Larry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1106-CR-549
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Tony V. Hawkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
56A05-1110-PC-524
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Willie Joseph v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-570
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Dixie Diana Schulz and Joseph Schulz v. The Kroger Co., Kroger Limited Partnership I, Seven-Up American Bottling Co., The American Bottling Co., Dr. Pepper/Seven-Up Inc., et al. (NFP)
32A05-1107-CT-368
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Kroger and other defendants with respect to Kroger’s knowledge about the existence of hazardous conditions in its store.

Jay Wallace v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1107-CR-645
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class D felony theft.

Fayazz Chowdhry v. Estate of Mustansar L. Chaudhry (NFP)
46A05-1103-EU-118
Estate, unsupervised. Affirms grant of the motion to dismiss filed by the representatives of the estate of Mustansar Chaudhry.

Trina Stover Thorstenson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
42A01-1106-CR-287
Criminal. Affirms partial denial of motion for credit time following revocation of probation.
 

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT