ILNews

Opinions July 11, 2011

July 11, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Bishop Harvey Jr., et al. v. Town of Merrillville, et al.
11-1041
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen. Affirms summary judgment for the defendants on the homeowners’ Section 1983 equal protection claim. Without a similarly situated comparator, the homeowners’ equal protection claim cannot hold water. The District Court also did not err in failing to address the homeowners’ belatedly asserted and undeveloped contention that the defendants violated their First Amendment rights by suppressing their speech. Modifies judgment to dismiss without prejudice instead of remanding the state law claims.

Indiana Supreme Court
Cedric Lewis v. State of Indiana
49S02-1010-CR-619
Criminal. Affirms conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The gun found in Lewis’ car was not the product of a search and his sentence is appropriate.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Isaiah Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-PC-1235
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted three transfers and denied 27 for the week ending July 8, 2011.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT