ILNews

Opinions June 13, 2013

June 13, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Re: the Name Change of Jane Doe, Petitioner, Mary Doe, a Minor, and Baby Doe, a Minor
49A02-1211-MI-894
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of mother Jane Doe’s petition to change her and her children’s names without publishing notice of the change based on the evidence in the record and current law. Mother may be able to protect some information from public record by going through Administrative Rule 9, but she did not choose to do so.

Anthony J. Iemma, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Successor by Merger with Bank One, N.A.

20A03-1207-MF-326
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses and remands with instructions that the court vacate its order setting aside the tax deeds in Cause No. 41 and its grant of summary judgment and decree of foreclosure in Cause No. 188. LRB is the owner of the two lots in question and there is no longer any basis for the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and foreclosure in favor of Chase in Cause No. 188.

A.P. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and UGN, Inc. (NFP)
93A02-1210-EX-804
Agency action. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

Deborah K. Wagner as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Harry L. Tillman v. Jeffrey L. Finney as Guardian of the Person and Estate of R. Virginia Tillman (NFP)
82A05-1207-GU-375
Guardianship. Affirms order enforcing a prenuptial provision for spousal support upon petition by Finney. Remands for clarification of the payee of attorney fees.

Richard Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1206-CR-310
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for one count each of Class A felonies conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine and dealing in methamphetamine (manufacturing).

Juan A. Gonzales v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1210-PC-421
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brandan Bellamy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-CR-866
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony battery.

Stephen L. Gilmore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
40A01-1207-CR-321
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class C felony reckless homicide.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT