ILNews

Opinions Feb. 27, 2014

February 27, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. John A. Peters III
12-3830
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence discovered during the search of a car in which Peters was a passenger. The District Court committed no error in crediting the testimony of an experienced police officer who, after observing two cars traveling in tandem for a period of time, said he credibly believed that the trailing car was approximately 75 feet behind the lead car at a speed of approximately 60 miles-per-hour. If an officer knowing these facts could reasonably conclude that this combination of speed and distance violated Indiana law, that is all that is necessary to support probable cause.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. Chad Bryant
32A01-1306-CR-282
Criminal. Reverses dismissal of charges against Bryant for Class D felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator. The state properly charged Bryant with Class D felony operating a vehicle as an HTV as a matter of law, and that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted Bryant’s motion to dismiss.

State of Indiana v. Michael E. Cunningham
19A05-1310-CR-489
Criminal. Affirms grant of Cunningham’s motion to suppress marijuana and a marijuana pipe. The state has failed to establish that Cunningham’s purported consent to the pat down was constitutionally valid. As such, the discovery of the marijuana in the pill bottle during the illegal pat down and the subsequent discovery of the pipe must be suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree. Judge Brown dissents.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.G. and C.G. (Minor Children) and B.G. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
84A05-1305-JT-219
Juvenile. Dismisses mother’s appeal of order terminating her parental rights to two of her seven children. The mother forfeited her right to appeal because she failed to file a timely notice of appeal.

Kathy K. Brunner v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1307-EX-592
Agency action. Affirms denial of claim for unemployment benefits.

M.M. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1307-JV-367
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for committing an act that would be Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult.

Brad S. Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1306-CR-485
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class C felony robbery and affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery and Class D felony domestic battery.

Michael L. Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1109-CR-531
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Jose Ayala Cuevas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1306-CR-298
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness and Class B misdemeanor reckless driving.

Anna Marie Kelley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A05-1307-CR-333
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class D felony auto theft.

David E. Matney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1308-CR-372
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony auto theft.

David Burroughs v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1307-CR-360
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony burglary.

Paul Farrell v. Deborah Farrell (NFP)
40A01-1307-DR-305
Domestic relation. Affirms in part. Concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the calculation and distribution of the marital estate. Remands with instructions for the trial court to replace the joint and several liability language consistent with its intent that the medical debt be equally divided between the parties.

Johnny D. Wayt v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A05-1307-PC-338
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: E.G. v. Eskenazi Health Midtown Community Mental Health Center (NFP)
49A02-1308-MH-724
Mental health. Affirms order concluding that Midtown proved by clear and convincing evidence that E.G. was dangerous to others and ordering him to take his prescribed medications.

Rapkin Group, Inc., as a minority Member on behalf and for the benefit of The Eye Center Group, LLC and Surgicenter Group, LLC. v. L. Marshall Roch, M.D. and Lynnette M. Watkins, M.D. (NFP)
18A02-1302-CT-193
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Drs. Roch and Watkins in Rapkin’s claim for actual fraud, constructive fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Uh oh, someone is really going to get their panti ... uh, um ... I mean get upset now: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/31/arkansas-passes-indiana-style-religious-freedom-bill

  2. Bryan, stop insulting the Swedes by comparing them to the American oligarchs. Otherwise your point is well taken.

  3. Sociologist of religion Peter Berger once said that the US is a “nation of Indians ruled by Swedes.” He meant an irreligious elite ruling a religious people, as that Sweden is the world’s least religious country and India the most religious. The idea is that American social elites tend to be much less religious than just about everyone else in the country. If this is true, it helps explain the controversy raking Indiana over Hollywood, San Fran, NYC, academia and downtown Indy hot coals. Nevermind logic, nevermind it is just the 1993 fed bill did, forget the Founders, abandon of historic dedication to religious liberty. The Swedes rule. You cannot argue with elitists. They have the power, they will use the power, sit down and shut up or feel the power. I know firsthand, having been dealt blows from the elite's high and mighty hands often as a mere religious plebe.

  4. I need helping gaining custody of my 5 and 1 year old from my alcoholic girlfriend. This should be an easy case for any lawyer to win... I've just never had the courage to take her that far. She has a record of public intox and other things. She has no job and no where to live othe than with me. But after 5 years of trying to help her with her bad habit, she has put our kids in danger by driving after drinking with them... She got detained yesterday and the police chief released my kids to me from the police station. I live paycheck to paycheck and Im under alot of stress dealing with this situation. Can anyone please help?

  5. The more a state tries to force people to associate, who don't like each other and simply want to lead separate lives, the more that state invalidates itself....... This conflict has shown clearly that the advocates of "tolerance" are themselves intolerant, the advocates of "diversity" intend to inflict themselves on an unwilling majority by force if necessary, until that people complies and relents and allows itself to be made homogenous with the politically correct preferences of the diversity-lobbies. Let's clearly understand, this is force versus force and democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a false god in the first place, even if it is a valid ideal for politics, but it is becoming ever more just an empty slogan that just suckers a bunch of cattle into paying their taxes and volunteering for stupid wars.

ADVERTISEMENT