ILNews

Opinions Jan. 30, 2012

January 30, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

State of Indiana v. Johnnie S. McCaa
56A04-1107-CR-341
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s grant of McCaa’s motion to suppress evidence, holding that due to the unusual circumstances of an initial traffic stop, police did not err in asking McCaa to drive his truck to another location, where he ultimately failed field sobriety tests.

Latoyia Billingsley v. State of Indiana
02A03-1107-CR-301
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended within 10 years of a prior infraction, holding that Billingsley’s driving record shows that her license had been previously suspended, and she had been convicted of driving while suspended within 10 years of the most recent offense.

A.T. (Mother) v. G.T. (Father)
39A05-1107-DR-335
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court’s denial of mother’s petition for a change of judge in a custody modification action filed by the father, holding that the trial court should have automatically granted the request for automatic change of judge under Trial Rule 76(B). Furthermore, the trial court should not have held the modification hearing, as it was deprived of jurisdiction by the timely filing of the Trial Rule 76(B) request.

Fletcher Coleman and Dorothy Coleman v. Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization, Inc., and Northeast Neighborhood Council, Inc. (NFP)
71A05-1106-CT-300
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s denial of the Colemans’ motion to strike portions of Northeast Neighborhood Revitalization Organization’s affidavits, finding no genuine issues of material fact exist.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of J.S., minor child, and T.S. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, Scott County Office (NFP)
72A01-1107-JT-329
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Anthony A. May v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1107-CR-697
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child.

Andre Perry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1105-CR-438
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm, three counts of Class B felony criminal confinement and one count of Class C felony robbery.

Kristen Leach v. Steven Leach (NFP)
39A01-1108-DR-332
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order granting custody of children to father.

Jesse C.E. Rayford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
01A02-1106-CR-554
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, but remands for resentencing, holding that the combined term of imprisonment and period of probation should not exceed one year.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT