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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT