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. 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