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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT