ILNews

Opinions June 13, 2011

June 13, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Antwon Abbott v. State of Indiana

34A02-1009-CR-1067
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felony possession of cocaine and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence the cocaine and marijuana found during the search of Abbott’s person. His argument fails that the statute that elevated his possession crime to a Class B felony is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him.

The City of Boonville v. American Cold Storage, et al.
87A01-1004-PL-167
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court holding that tax-exempt parcels shouldn’t be counted in determining the total number of landowners in the annexed territory. The clear language of Indiana Code 36-4-3-11(a)(1) indicates the Legislature’s intent that all property – whether taxable or tax exempt – should be counted in determining standing. The trial court erred in determining the landowners have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action. Remands for that action to be dismissed. Affirms that adjacent landowners do not have standing to join in the remonstrance under the 65 percent rule.

Khawar Muneer v. Shazi Muneer

32A01-1012-PO-658
Protective order. Affirms denial of Khawar Muneer’s motion to transfer venue. Shazi Muneer filed her petition in the county of her residence, in compliance with Indiana Code 34-26-5-4(b).

Jane D. Connolly v. Michael P. Connolly
02A04-1101-DR-4
Domestic relation. Affirms judgment in favor of Michael Connolly that Jane Connolly isn’t entitled to an equalization payment based on his ownership interest in commercial real estate. The only circumstances in which he would owe an equalization payment would be if the total value of his interest in Bantry Bay had increased. Affirms order that Jane pay a portion of Michael’s attorney fees.  

Yvette Albright v. Four Winds International
93A02-1010-EX-1324
Agency action. Reverses decision of the full Worker’s Compensation Board that Four Winds isn’t responsible for providing prescription Cymbalta to Albright. The evidence shows Albright suffers from paresthesias and Cymbalta helps treat the pain that arises from the condition. Remands for the board to enter an award in favor of Albright, directing Four Winds to provide her with Cymbalta or an equivalent medication to treat her paresthesias and determine how long the company should be required to provide such medication.

Kyle D. Rosenfield v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A05-1007-CR-648
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony auto theft.

Paternity of B.S.C.; S.C. v. N.A.S. (NFP)
55A04-1012-JP-780
Juvenile. Affirms order on emergency hearing which denied father’s request to modify physical custody.

Robert P. Webber v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1011-CR-647
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony conspiracy to commit burglary.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.D.; S.D. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
20A03-1010-JT-506
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating parental rights.
 
Cory Blocker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A04-1010-CR-635
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and revocation of probation.

Richard Bartlett v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1012-CR-813
Criminal. Affirms sanction for violating probation.

Henry Howard v. Raymond Grimes, et al. (NFP)
48A04-1010-CC-629
Civil collection. Dismisses Howard’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Warrum Construction Inc., et al. v. Yellow Book Sales and Distribution Co., Inc. (NFP)
49A05-1011-CC-722
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment for Yellow Book in its complaint seeking payment from Warrum Construction of the balance owed under contracts for advertising.

Alfred M. Wiley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1007-CR-417
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine and Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

Vaughn Highley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A04-1011-CR-710
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony criminal confinement and Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury.
 
Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court granted one transfer for the week ended June 10.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT