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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT