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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT