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. 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