ILNews

Opinions Jan. 17, 2012

January 17, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Lebamoff Enterprises v. Alex Hurley, in his official capacity as chairman of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission
11-1362
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division
U.S. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Civil. Affirms District judge’s grant of summary judgment for the state defendants, ruling against a Fort Wayne area wine retailer’s constitutional challenge to a state law that prevents retailers from shipping wine to consumers via a motor carrier. The appellate panel found that the state statute is not preempted by federal law. Judge David Hamilton issued a separate concurring opinion.

The Indiana Supreme Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.C. and J.C.; J.D.C. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
82A01-1105-JT-225
Termination of Parental Rights. Affirms trial court’s termination of a mother’s parental rights, finding the court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and that sufficient evidence existed to support the termination.

Rebecca Herb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1106-CR-251
Criminal. Affirms aggregate two-year sentence that had six months suspended to probation. Finds that the sentence imposed following a guilty plea was not inappropriate in light of the nature of the fraud and stolen property offenses and the defendant’s character.

Adrian Deshon Porch v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1012-CR-686
Criminal. Affirms woman’s conviction for dealing in cocaine, dealing a narcotic drug and possessing paraphernalia, finding the court didn’t abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence and that the appeal is barred under the law of the case doctrine.

Tyrone Tapp v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1106-CR-275
Criminal. Affirms defendant’s conviction as a habitual offender, finding the trial court didn’t commit reversible error in denying a motion to dismiss the habitual offender allegation.
 
Rising Property Management, LLP v. Department of Metropolitan Development Board of Zoning Appeals and Glendale Partners, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1107-MI-662
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s decision upholding a ruling by the Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals to approve a petition for variance filed by Glendale Partners. Finds that Rising Property Management has not established that the quantum of legitimate evidence was so proportionately meager as to lead to the conclusion that the BZA’s findings were not rational.

Aliesha Youna v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1106-CR-336
Criminal. Affirms defendant’s convictions for criminal recklessness and criminal mischief following a jury trial, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not declaring a mistrial after allegedly improper remarks from the prosecutor during closing arguments.

Brandi M. Holder v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1106-CR-288
Criminal. Affirms convictions for paraphernalia and marijuana possession, finding the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in admitting seized evidence, admitting the test results of an item found in the vehicle, and instructing the jury on constructive possession.

Jerome Maxwell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1101-CR-6
Criminal. Affirms defendant’s convictions on felony child molesting and aggregate 40-year sentence of incarceration, finding the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion or commit fundamental error, that the prosecutor didn’t commit misconduct, that the convictions weren’t double jeopardy violations and the sentence is appropriate.

Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions as of IL deadline.

A transfer disposition list shows the justices denied transfer on 10 cases during a private conference last week.

 

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