ILNews

Opinions July 21, 2011

July 21, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Townsquare Media Inc., f/k/a Regent Communications Inc. v. Alan R. Brill, et al.
10-3017, 10-3018
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Chief Judge Richard Young.
Civil. The decision of the bankruptcy court to remand a suit to state court – which had been removed to the bankruptcy court after being filed in state court – is unreviewable and Regent’s appeal must be dismissed.

L.V. and Yvette Crawford v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. d/b/a America’s Wholesale Lender, et al.
10-3135
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Chief Judge Philip Simon.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for Countrywide Home Loans in the Crawfords' suit following their default on their mortgage, eviction from the home, and sale of the home in a sheriff’s sale. The Crawfords did not meet their burden to come forward with specific facts showing that there were genuine issues for trial. Vacates the District Court’s order of Aug. 10, 2010, and remands for the limited purpose of permitting the District Court to enter a new order specifying which aspects of the Crawfords’ complaint were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and remanding those aspects to the state court from which the case was removed.

Indiana Supreme Court
Glenn Carpenter v. State of Indiana

49S02-1104-CR-198
Criminal. Revises Carpenter’s sentence from 40 years to 20 years following his conviction of Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and being an habitual offender. His sentence is inappropriate given the unaggravated nature of the offense as a whole and his character and past criminal history. Justice Dickson dissents.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jacqueline Wisner, M.D., and the South Bend Clinic, L.L.P. v. Archie L. Laney
71A03-1007-CT-382
Civil tort. Affirms in part and reverses in part in a negligence action. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Laney’s attorney’s actions did not deprive the defendants of a fair trial or in concluding that the trial court instructions were sufficient to dispel any confusion that may have been caused by Laney’s counsel’s final argument. The trial court didn’t err in finding that no impropriety occurred when a witness spoke to other witnesses before trial. Reverses order denying Laney prejudgment interest. Remands for further proceedings.

James Bellamy v. State of Indiana
49A02-1011-CR-1214
Criminal. Affirms finding Bellamy was in direct criminal contempt. Despite his status as a layperson, the trial court did not err in finding he was in direct contempt of the trial court for showing up late to court after being warned. Any challenge to the error relating to the trial court’s failure to allow him to explain his tardiness was waived.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.B., et al.; W.B. v. IDCS (NFP)

28A05-1101-JT-22
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Antonio Jenkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
68A01-1008-CR-417
Criminal. Grants rehearing to explain more fully why Jenkins waived the issue of the admissibility of certain evidence under Indiana Rules of Evidence Rule 616.

Michael J. Earnest v. State of Indiana (NFP)
50A03-1011-CR-602
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for one count of Class A felony child molesting, reverses second conviction of Class A felony child molesting, and remands for entry of judgment of conviction of one count of incest as a Class B felony and sentencing on that offense.

Marvin M. Willis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A05-1012-CR-807
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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