ILNews

Opinions Feb. 24, 2012

February 24, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
CFS, LLC and Charles Blackwelder v. Bank of America, Successor in Interest to LaSalle Bank Midwest National Association

29A02-1105-MF-436
Mortgage foreclosure.  Affirms trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Bank of America, finding that the bank established no genuine issue of material fact existed about whether a successor bank surviving after a merger could enforce the note and mortgage of the predecessor.

Undray D. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1012-PC-1389
Post-conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief in murder case on grounds that trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective.

Sasha Slater v. Ridinger Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Shakamak IGA (NFP)
28A05-1104-CT-207
Civil tort. Reverses and remands slip-and-fall injury case where a store had obtained summary judgment on grounds that the plaintiff didn’t provide evidence as to what caused her fall. Finds the plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact about the floor where the injury occurred and ruled the trial court’s summary judgment ruling was an error.

In Re: Levi Jacob Loucks Testimonial Trust and James M. Loucks, Trustee; Angel M. Lepley v. Levi J. Loucks (NFP)
17A04-1107-TR-386
Trust. Affirms judgment of trial court that denied a woman’s request to access principal trust funds to pay child support and also denied her request for attorney fees incurred while trying to collect the child support.

Jeremy D. Stone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1007-CR-464
Criminal. Affirms a three-year executed sentence for strangulation, finding that defendant-appellant didn’t demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion in failing to mention the man’s guilty plea as a mitigating factor. Nothing is inappropriate about the sentence based on the offender’s character and nature of the crime.
 
Danny W. Ramsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
14A01-1102-PC-84
Post-conviction. Affirms trial court’s partial denial of a post-conviction relief petition regarding an evidentiary hearing request, whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, and whether appellate counsel’s failure to challenge the sentence constituted ineffective assistance.
 
Antoine L. Skinner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1105-CR-514
Criminal. Affirms a probation revocation, finding that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in revoking all four years of a suspended sentence because of the man’s single sale of cocaine to a police informant which the defendant-appellant claimed was “a trivial violation.”
 
T.W.O. f/k/a T.L.W. v. G.A.W. (NFP)
64A03-1106-DR-289
Domestic relations. Affirms trial court’s decision in favor of the father on grounds that the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying mother’s request to modify custody, didn’t abuse its discretion in dividing marital property, and didn’t abuse its discretion in declining to modify the mother’s child support obligation to an earlier date.
 
Zachery Lewis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1108-CR-796
Criminal. Affirms one-year jail sentence for two counts of Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury, finding that the nature of the offense and offender’s character didn’t make the sentence inappropriate.

Henry A. Booker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1105-CR-221
 Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in a Schedule II controlled substance, finding the 40-year sentence is appropriate, that the evidence was sufficient and the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in jury instruction regarding the defendant’s defense to the crime.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT