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. 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