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. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT