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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT