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 practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT