ILNews

Opinions July 16, 2012

July 16, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
M & M Investment Group, LLC v. Ahlemeyer Farms, Inc. and Monroe Bank
03A04-1112-CC-639
Civil collection. Affirms trial court order denying M&M’s petition for a tax deed for property of which Monroe Bank was the mortgagee, holding that the court properly denied the petition. Finds that the Indiana pre-tax-sale notice statute violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Kyle L. Doolin v. State of Indiana
32A01-1111-CR-545
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction of possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor, holding that the trial court did abuse its discretion when it admitted into evidence the results of an in-court field test of a substance alleged to be marijuana, but the error was harmless.

In Re: The Paternity of J.D. and D.D.; B.D. (Father) v. C.H. (Mother) (NFP)
76A04-1111-JP-580
Juvenile/paternity. Reverses and remands, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding from evidence a custody evaluation report to determine parenting time.

James W. Hamilton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A05-1110-CR-599
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Stephen Duane Rush v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1112-CR-1091
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction and 149-year aggregate sentence for murder, three counts of Class A felony attempted murder, and Class C felony failure to stop after an accident resulting in injury and death.

Timothy Leon Jester v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1112-CR-701
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class C felony operating a vehicle after a lifetime suspension, finding that the state did not prove that Jester had a lifetime suspension at the time of the offense.

Austin Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A01-1112-CR-611
Criminal. Affirms trial court convictions of two Class C felony counts of sexual misconduct with a minor.
 

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