ILNews

Opinions Jan. 31, 2012

January 31, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Dale J. Atkins v. Michael Zenk
11-1891
Civil. Affirms U.S. District Court’s denial of habeas corpus petition, holding Atkins did not prove his claim that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of trial counsel.

Indiana Supreme Court
Henry C. Bennett and Schupan & Sons, Inc. v. John Richmond and Jennifer Richmond
20S03-1105-CV-293
Civil. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed a psychologist to testify on behalf of a plaintiff in a personal injury case as to the cause of a brain injury or in finding that the psychologist’s testimony was based on reliable scientific principles.  

Reginald N. Person, Jr. v. Carol A. Shipley
20S03-1110-CT-609
Civil tort. Holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony offered by a personal injury defendant in a rear-end collision case. Dr. Turner’s opinions were based on reliable scientific principles that could be applied to the facts at issue.

Indiana Court of Appeals
William R. Wallace v. State of Indiana
26A01-1101-CR-9
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order denying Wallace’s motion to dismiss a charge of Class D felony voyeurism for videotaping without consent a sexual encounter he had with a woman.

Nathan Anderson v. State of Indiana
49A05-1105-CR-243
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for murder, but reverses convictions of and vacates sentences for burglary and abuse of a corpse, holding Anderson had been denied his request for counsel prior to making statements in interrogation and that the admission of that testimony into evidence at trial influenced the jury’s decision.

Steven Nowling v. State of Indiana
31A01-1010-CR-552
Criminal. On petition for rehearing, the appellate court affirmed its original decision affirming the trial court, holding that during trial Nowling never objected to testimony by a forensic scientist who affirmed the presence of methamphetamine in a pen hull seized from Nowling’s home.

Christopher Stark v. State of Indiana
49A05-1104-CR-152
Criminal. On interlocutory appeal, affirms trial court’s denial of Stark’s motion to suppress evidence that he had a handgun in his possession, holding that a police officer found the gun when retrieving Starks’ coat and that any intrusion in finding the gun was minimal.

Ronald D. Tiede v. State of Indiana (NFP)
91A04-1105-CR-248
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion to withdraw guilty pleas to two counts of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and affirms trial court’s modification of the sentence contained in Tiede’s plea agreement.

Jason Schapker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
55A01-1106-CR-258
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Gary Hollin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A01-1108-CR-389
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s sentence following determination that Hollin violated his probation.

In the Matter of M.K., I.K., and N.K.; R.K. and E.K. v. Indiana Department of Child Services and Stephen P. Griebel (NFP)
02A03-1104-JC-151
Juvenile. Reverses trial court’s determination that a couple’s three children were children in need of services, holding that the Department of Child Services was overzealous in removing the children from the parents’ care at a time when the family was intact but had suffered a series of unfortunate circumstances.

Daddys 'O Pub, LLC v. Purkey Enterprises, Inc. (NFP)
29A02-1105-PL-439
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s determination that an 1897 deed did not create an easement in Purkey Enterprises’ building that would enable the owners of an adjoining pub to use its stairway to access the second story of the pub’s building.

Nick Khanthamany v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1106-CR-497
Criminal. Affirms convictions of felony murder and conspiracy to commit robbery.

James Eubanks, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1105-CR-212
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony burglary.

Samantha Bradley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-513
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Susan Kohl v. Duane Kohl (NFP)
34A05-1105-DR-289
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s determination that that husband’s pension should not be included as a marital asset, but finding that the wife presented sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that an equal division of marital property is just and reasonable; remands to the trial court with instructions to award 60 percent of the marital estate to the wife and 40 percent to the husband.

Brien Clayton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1102-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, finding harmless any error in the admission of opinion testimony and sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT