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

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