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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT