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. @ President Snow, like they really read these comments or have the GUTS to show what is the right thing to do. They are just worrying about planning the next retirement party, the others JUST DO NOT CARE about what is right. Its the Good Ol'Boys - they do not care about the rights of the mother or child, they just care about their next vote, which, from what I gather, the mother left the state of Indiana because of the domestic violence that was going on through out the marriage, the father had three restraining orders on him from three different women, but yet, the COA judges sent a strong message, go ahead men put your women in place, do what you have to do, you have our backs... I just wish the REAL truth could be told about this situation... Please pray for this child and mother that God will some how make things right and send a miracle from above.

  2. I hear you.... Us Christians are the minority. The LGBTs groups have more rights than the Christians..... How come when we express our faith openly in public we are prosecuted? This justice system do not want to seem "bias" but yet forgets who have voted them into office.

  3. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  4. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  5. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

ADVERTISEMENT