ILNews

Opinions Feb. 3, 2012

February 3, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:

Michael B. Adams v. State of Indiana
29S02-1109-CR-542
Criminal. Affirms suspension of Adams’ driver’s license, registration and the ability to register other vehicles following his conviction of possession of marijuana. The state must demonstrate that a defendant made more than an incidental use of a motor vehicle in committing his offense, but once the state makes this showing, then a trial court must order the defendant’s driver’s license, registration and ability to register other vehicles suspended. The court may exercise its discretion only in setting the length of that suspension.

Friday’s opinions

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Larry Davis v. Kris Ockomon, et al.
10-2589
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms finding that the position of senior humane officer for the city of Anderson was a policymaking position and therefore Davis could be dismissed for political reasons. City ordinances authorized the senior humane officer to exercise policymaking discretion.

United States of America v. Gregory G. Eller
10-2465
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Criminal. Affirms conviction of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. Rejects Eller’s 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c) void-for-vagueness claim and states there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Elmer J. Bailey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-487
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony domestic battery and remands with instructions to enter judgment of conviction for Class B misdemeanor battery and for resentencing.

John D. Jenkins Revocable Living Trust, John D. Jenkins, Trustee v. Peru Utility Service Board, City of Peru and Peru Common Council (NFP)
52A02-1106-PL-540
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court finding that no taking occurred by Peru Utilities, the city of Peru and Peru Common Council and decision to not enter a declaratory judgment order as to the rights and obligations of the trust and the defendants with regard to payment of fees.

Roslyn Adkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-CR-626
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class C felony battery, enhanced for the use of a deadly weapon.

Jerry Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A01-1105-CR-209
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for a new trial.
 

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