Opinions July 26, 2012

July 26, 2012
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Stevenson serve his previously suspended sentence.

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

Derrick Rockingham v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Douglas Chubb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

J.H. and T.G. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.

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

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

Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.
Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?