ILNews

Opinions Jan. 16, 2014

January 16, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday.
In the matter of: New Energy Corporation; Appeal of: Natural Chem Holdings LLC
13-2501
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. Affirms confirmation of sale of assets of New Energy Corp., which operated an ethanol plant and entered into bankruptcy, following a $2.5 million bid from a joint venture. Rejects Natural Chem Holdings’ opposition of confirmation, which contended that the establishment of the joint venture amounted to collusion that spoiled the auction. Natural Chem did not participate in the auction and thus could not have been harmed.  

Thursday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Floyd County and Floyd County Plan Commission v. City of New Albany and New Albany City Plan Commission
22A05-1303-MI-139
Miscellaneous. Affirms summary judgment for the city on a lawsuit over whether the city or county has zoning jurisdiction over an unincorporated area outside the city limits. As a matter of law, the county is not entitled to exercise jurisdiction over the fringe area, nor is it required to consent to the city’s exercise of jurisdiction. Because the county has a population of less than 95,000, Indiana Code 36-7-4-205(f) determines which entity is entitled to exercise jurisdiction over the fringe area, and because the city is providing municipal services to the fringe area, it is entitled to the exercise of jurisdiction without the necessity of county approval.

Chauncey Krantz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A04-1302-CR-87
Criminal. Affirms 16-year sentence for Class C felony child molesting, Class C felony child exploitation and Class D felony possession of child pornography.

Ronald Lemon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1305-CR-221
Criminal. Affirms Class D felony possession of marijuana conviction.

Jack Perkins, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1306-CR-315
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting and Class B felony confinement.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

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