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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT