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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT