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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT