ILNews

Opinions July 20, 2012

July 20, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Bradley M. Shideler v. Michael J. Astrue, commissioner of Social Security
11-3284
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L.
Miller Jr.
Civil. Affirms denial of application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. The administrative law judge adequately evaluated Shideler’s credibility. Whatever his current condition is, the ALJ’s decision finding that he was not disabled as of March 31, 2000, is supported by substantial evidence.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Devon D. Dokes, Jr. v. State of Indiana
71A03-1111-CR-503
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation for being a felon in possession of a handgun. Because the difference between the burden of proof required to convict someone of a crime and the burden of proof required to revoke probation, the court could revoke probation after finding Dokes not guilty based on the same evidence.

James Lee Paul v. State of Indiana
82A05-1111-CR-634
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for murder. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing certain evidence as the danger to the officers and the tenants, coupled with the tampering of evidence, was an exigent circumstance that made it impractical for the officers to obtain an arrest warrant before arresting Paul.

Bradley D. Haub v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentences stemming from three different causes for Class B felony aiding burglary, two counts of Class C felony forgery, Class D felony auto theft, and Class D felony theft.

Anthony Lee Leturgez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1112-CR-1105
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.P. and P.S. (Minor Children); A.P. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
03A01-1107-JT-309
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of B.B. and L.H. (Minor Children); Lo.H. (Mother) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1111-JT-1101
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Jamey Wayne Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1110-CR-1066
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while privileges were forfeited for life.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT