ILNews

Opinions Jan. 13, 2012

January 13, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court posted the following opinions Thursday after IL deadline:
In the Matter of Augustus J. Mendenhall
32S00-1005-DI-230
Disciplinary. Permanently disbarrs Mendall, the attorney who attacked State Rep. Ed DeLaney in 2009 and was convicted as guilty but mentally ill on five felonies and sentenced to 40 years imprisonment. Concludes that Mendenhall violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(b) by committing criminal acts, including attempted murder, that reflect adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.
 
In the Matter of Nancy J. Flatt-Moore
30S00-0911-DI-535
Disciplinary. Issues a public reprimand to a deputy prosecutor that the Supreme Court found surrendered her prosecutorial discretion in plea negotiations entirely to the pecuniary demands of the victim of the crime. The court found she violated Rule 8.4(d) that prohibits attorneys from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Friday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Kevin Harris v. Warrick County Sheriff’s Department
10-3706
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Chief Judge Richard Young.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s entry of summary judgment for the sheriff’s department in a case where a deputy sheriff’s probationary employment was terminated based on violations of standard operating procedures, failure to follow orders and insufficient commitment to the job. Harris’s circumstantial evidence of discrimination falls far short of supporting an inference that he was terminated because of his race.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Utility Center, Inc., d/b/a Aqua Indiana, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, Indiana
90A04-1101-PL-15
Civil. Affirms trial court judgment relating to a public utility’s property condemnation that was before the Fort Wayne Board of Public Works. Finds the trial court can and should decline to hold a jury trial and limit its review. Holds that judicial review of administrative determination of just compensation should be limited to the consideration of the agency record and other evidence on abuse of discretion.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.H. & Ja.H.; and M.H. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
48A05-1105-JT-225
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s judgment terminating a mother’s parental rights to her two children.

In Re: The Commitment of A.M. v. Community North Hospital / Gallahue Mental Health Services (NFP)
49A02-1109-MH-887
Mental Health. Affirms that sufficient evidence was presented to support an involuntary commitment and finds the appeal is moot because the commitment expired Dec. 21, 2011.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT