ILNews

Opinions Feb. 7, 2012

February 7, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Roy Wirtz, et al. v. City of South Bend
11-3811
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Civil. Affirms dismissal of the city’s motion to appeal a case arising under the First Amendment’s establishment clause. Although the city is challenging two appealable orders, the challenge is untimely. The appeal is also moot.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Mitchell A. McCarter v. State of Indiana
26A04-1106-CR-409
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class D felony sexual battery and remands with instructions to enter judgment as Class B misdemeanor battery. The state did not prove the element that D.H. perceived that she was compelled to submit to the groping of her buttocks through force or threat of force.

Benjamin Crossing Homeowners' Association, Inc. v. Rose Heide and David F. Wilkerson

79A04-1103-PL-185
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for Heide and Wilkerson in their suit seeking declaratory judgment that the homeowners’ association couldn’t enforce a restrictive covenant to prohibit the operation of a child care business in their residences. The planned unit development ordinance has no affect on the association’s authority to enforce the private restrictive covenants at issue. Remands with instructions to enter summary judgment for the association on its request for injunctive relief and for further proceedings to determine an award of damages, if any.

Justin Woodhouse v. State of Indiana (NFP)
56A04-1105-CR-324
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of the trial court’s denial of Woodhouse’s motion to dismiss the state’s notice of a probation violation.

Christopher Short v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1107-CR-362
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for discharge pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B).

R.W. v. M.R. (NFP)
48A04-1106-MI-331
Miscellaneous. Reverses order on clarification granting M.R. visitation with R.W.’s minor children. Remands with instructions.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT