ILNews

Opinions July 26, 2012

July 26, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court

Michael J. Lock v. State of Indiana
35S04-1110-CR-622
Criminal. Affirms Lock’s conviction and sentence for Class D felony operating a motor vehicle as a habitual traffic violator and the revocation of his driving privileges for life. I.C. 9-30-10-16 is not unconstitutionally vague and based on the stipulation that Lock’s Zuma was traveling 43 MPH, a reasonable fact-finder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Zuma had a maximum design speed in excess of 25 MPH. Justice Rucker dissents.
 
Roger L. Bushhorn v. State of Indiana
40S01-1206-CR-309
Criminal. Affirms 47-year sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony kidnapping, Class B felony criminal confinement and Class B felony attempted escape. Finds the sentence is not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) and there was no abuse of discretion.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeremiah Cline v. State of Indiana
06A05-1111-MI-611
Miscellaneous. Affirms determination that Cline is not required to register as a sex offender but that the trial court lacked authority to order removal of his name and information from the Indiana Sex Offender Registry. He has not demonstrated his entitlement to removal as a judicial remedy but may go through the Department of Correction. Chief Judge Robb dissents.

Denise A. Mertz a/k/a Denise A. Grimmer v. Robert G. Mertz
64A03-1108-DR-360
Domestic relation. Affirms the trial court did not err in modifying Robert Mertz’s child support obligation. His plan to pay one-half of his income toward his support obligation was a sufficient plan to warrant reinstatement of his driving privileges. Chief Judge Robb dissents in part.

J. Michael Kummerer v. C. Richard Marshall
03A01-1201-CT-33
Civil tort. Affirms failure to award Kummerer prejudgment interest and failure to grant his motion to correct errors. Prejudgment interest was not appropriate in this case because the trial court had to exercise its judgment in calculating damages.

Arnold Blevins v. Raymond Arthur Brassart (NFP)
18A03-1201-PL-8
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of Blevins’ claims against Brassart because they were barred by the Statute of Frauds.

Timothy Stevenson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1111-CR-655
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Stevenson serve his previously suspended sentence.

Fredrick D. Gaither v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1202-PC-106
Post conviction. Affirms denial of successive petition for post-conviction relief.

Derrick Rockingham v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-25
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Douglas Chubb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
77A04-1110-CR-519
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

J.H. and T.G. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1112-JT-556
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Maurice Ervin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1112-CR-626
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony attendance with an animal at a fighting contest.

A.J. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

82A01-1111-JT-529
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.
 
Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT