ILNews

Opinions June 1, 2011

June 1, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Jeffery Sloan v. State of Indiana
18S04-1009-CR-502
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class A felony and Class C felony child molesting. Holds once concealment has been established, statutes of limitations for criminal offenses are tolled under Indiana Code 35-41-4-2(h) until a prosecuting authority becomes aware or should have become aware of sufficient evidence to charge the defendant. Also holds that under the facts of this case, there was no double jeopardy violation because each challenged offense was established by separate and distinct facts. Justices Sullivan and Rucker dissent.
 
Indiana Court of Appeals
Eddie Vance, Jr. v. State of Indiana
18A04-1011-CR-701
Criminal. Affirms decision to recommit Vance to the Department of Correction because he was released for parole prematurely. The trial court had personal jurisdiction over him and acted within a reasonable time when it reordered him back to the DOC.

Jonathan Wirth v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
22A01-1009-CT-440
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of American Family Mutual Insurance, in which the court found American Family is entitled to repayment of its medical lien pursuant to its insurance contract with Wirth. Wirth negotiated his settlement with the tortfeasor, which was completely satisfied as evidenced by the executed Release of All Claims form. In absence of any evidence that the settlement was reasonable and American Family’s lien should be reduced, American Family is entitled to complete repayment of its medical lien.

Antione A. Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-CR-1162
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony battery and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Joseph K. Todd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A03-1011-CR-566
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony failure to appear.

Julius Cabell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1010-CR-548
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress marijuana and statements made to police.

William Soper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1009-CR-611
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for jail time credit.

I
nvoluntary Commitment of A.K. (NFP)
18A02-1011-MH-1199
Mental health. Affirms order for A.K.’s regular involuntary commitment.

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