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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT