ILNews

Opinions June 10, 2011

June 10, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Liberty Country Club v. Landowners of Country Club Estates Housing Development
81A01-1007-MI-364
Miscellaneous. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the landowners of the housing development, concluding that under the terms of the covenant, Liberty is required to provide potable water to the homeowners in the development.

Brenda Bell v. Grandville Cooperative, Inc., et al.
49A04-1101-CT-2
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for Grandville Cooperative and Kirkpatrick Management in Bell’s personal injury negligence action against Grandville. There is a question of fact as to whether Grandville breached its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Remands for further proceedings.

State of Indiana v. Gerald Foster
02A03-1010-CR-596
Criminal. Affirms grant of Foster’s motion to suppress. Under the totality of the circumstances, the officer’s warrantless entry and in-home arrest of Foster was unreasonable and violated Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The connection between the arrest and the securing of statements discloses near constant interaction and exploitation of the arrest and precludes a finding of attenuation. Judge May concurs in result.

D.D. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1010-JV-1201
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of D.D. to be a delinquent child based on true findings for one count of aiding, inducing, or causing rape, and one count of criminal confinement.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Reed Hodges, et al. (NFP)
55A01-1007-MF-334
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses order dismissing Swafford from the bank’s complaint to foreclose on a mortgage executed in favor of the bank’s assignor by Reed and Angelia Hodges. Remands for further proceedings.

Martha Tichenor v. Dana Dodson (NFP)
41A04-1010-PO-667
Protective order. Affirms grant of civil protection order against Tichenor.

Harold L. Tice Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1010-CR-518
Criminal. Affirms convictions of sexual misconduct with a minor as a Class C felony and contributing to the delinquency of a minor as a Class A misdemeanor.

Walter L. Walker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1010-CR-691
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony pointing a firearm.

Matthew Fearnow v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1010-CR-552
Criminal. Reverses denial of request for permission to file a belated notice of appeal. Remands for further proceedings.

Leland Stephens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1011-CR-679
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft.

Indiana Tax Court had 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