ILNews

Opinions June 11, 2012

June 11, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
IP of A West 86th Street 1, LLC, et al., v. Morgan Stanley Worldwide Capital Holdings, LLC
11-2891
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms District Court’s summary judgment in favor of Morgan Stanley, holding that the company was entitled to structure the sale of a loan as it wished and that the company did not err in allowing a purchaser to use escrow funds to finance the sale.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Phelps v. State of Indiana
55A01-1108-CR-410
Criminal. Affirms 35-year sentence with five years suspended for a minor convicted as an adult of a Class A attempted murder for the school shooting of a classmate, holding that the sentence did not lead to an inference of gross disproportionality.

Delmas Sexton II v. State of Indiana
02A03-1110-CR-465
Criminal. Affirms 65-year sentence for a murder conviction in a Fort Wayne killing, holding that the trial court’s consideration of aggravating factors that resulted in a longer sentence was not double jeopardy or punishment for charges that had been dropped in a plea agreement.

Canon Harper v. State of Indiana
10A01-1012-CR-687
Criminal. Affirms on rehearing convictions of dealing in cocaine, possession of cocaine, dealing in a narcotic drug, and possession of a narcotic drug, all Class A felonies; two counts of resisting law enforcement, battery of a law enforcement officer, and possession of paraphernalia, all Class A misdemeanors; and maintaining a common nuisance, a Class D felony. The court ruled Harper constructively possessed the contraband.

David S. Healey v. State of Indiana
02A04-1110-CR-537
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class C felony failure to register as a sex offender and registering on a social media site that is used by people under age 18. Holds that amendments to Indiana’s Sex Offender Registry Act that require 10-year registration upon release from incarceration do not violate the state or federal Constitution because the registry is not intended to be punitive.

Michael L. Criss v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A05-1111-CR-632
Criminal. Affirms order revoking community corrections placement and committing Criss to the Indiana Department of Correction for a Class C felony battery conviction.  

Ron Weathers v. Jessica Turley (NFP)
45A03-1109-CT-405
Civil tort. Reverses jury’s award of $86,250 in damages to Turley, holding that a list she provided the court showing losses contained no factual information and included items of no real monetary value. Remands for the court to award damages of $3,000.

Sucharita Ananthaneni v. Access Therapies, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1109-PL-902
Civil plenary. Dismisses appeal of order denying motion to reconsider the refusal to set aside a default judgment entered in favor of Access Therapies, holding the appeal was not timely filed.

Steven G. Fraley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A03-1112-CR-565
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order revoking probation.

Karen D. McGuinness v. Michael F. McGuinness (NFP)
49A02-1110-DR-937
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court’s decision setting aside the decree of dissolution of marriage and property settlement agreement, holding that the court erred in concluding the husband had entered into the agreement and signed other documents under duress because it failed to address the husband’s petition alleging fraud. Remands for further proceedings.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: C.K. and R.K. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
20A04-1110-JT-534
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.
 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT