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

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT