ILNews

Opinions Jan. 21, 2014

January 21, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Lovoyne Drain
12-3684
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Affirms above-guidelines sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon. Section 4A1.3(a)(3), like every provision of the sentencing guidelines, is advisory. And the judge did not violate Drain’s right to due process by taking into account his arrest history as part of her evaluation of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a).

Indiana Supreme Court
American Cold Storage, et al. v. The City of Boonville
87S01-1303-PL-157
Civil plenary. Reverses the decision of the trial court and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Holds that the land in this case, which comprises the portion of State Road 62 included in the annexed territory, should be considered and counted as a single parcel in determining whether the remonstrating Landowners comprise 65 percent of the owners of the annexed territory.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Weist v. Kristen Dawn and State Farm Insurance Companies
49A02-1306-PL-541
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of State Farm on Weist’s complaint for monetary damages based on the direct action rule. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Dawn and remands for a trier of fact to resolve whether she is equitably estopped from asserting the defense that the statute of limitations bars Weist’s claim.

In the Matter of the Petition for Temporary Protective Order: A.N. v. K.G.
49A04-1212-PO-649
Protective order. Affirms order of contempt in favor of K.G. The trial court did not improperly act as an advocate and therefore did not deny A.N. her due process right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal. Judge Robb concurs in separate opinion.

Terry Berry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-583
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Christopher Jethroe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1304-CR-155
Criminal. Remands with instructions to the trial court to revise the sentence on the Class C felony dealing in marijuana conviction downward to a term of imprisonment within the range authorized by the Class C felony sentencing statute. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of school property.

Tievon N. Nichols v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1307-CR-293
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 50-year executed sentence following guilty plea to one count of Class A felony burglary, two counts of Class B felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon and one count of Class B felony criminal confinement.

Brandon M. Ebeyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-CR-372
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: N.I., the minor child, and K.I., the mother, K.I. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
91A04-1305-JT-244
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Smita Radhakrishnan v. Access Therapies, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1303-PL-202
Civil plenary. Reverses award of $32,237.60 in damages plus costs for a breach of contract and remands for further proceedings. Affirms dismissal of Radhakrishnan’s counterclaim requesting attorney fees and costs.

Charles E. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A01-1304-CR-164
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of denial of motion to correct error following denial of motion for jail time credit.

Edward Zaragoza v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1209-CR-744
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felonies murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, conspiracy to commit burglary, attempted robbery and burglary; Class D felonies conspiracy to commit theft and theft; and Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as well as determination Zaragoza is a habitual offender.

Darrell Kirkwood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1305-CR-209
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of previously suspended sentence.

VPR Properties, LLC and Purna Veer and Radhika Veer v. Affiliated Foot Care Clinic, PC (NFP)
10A04-1304-PL-177
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Affiliated Foot Care Clinic after it filed a breach of contract action against VPR properties.

Timothy J. Padgett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
51A01-1305-CR-228
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Donald Ware v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1304-PC-370
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions 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. 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