ILNews

Opinions June 14, 2011

June 14, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Alva Curtis v. State of Indiana
49S02-1010-CR-620
Criminal. Reverses denial of Curtis’ motion to dismiss. The trial court should have granted Curtis’ motion to dismiss and discharge because the days that counted toward the Rule 4(C) period exceeded 365. Curtis is not entitled to dismissal on fundamental-fairness grounds because he has not been involuntarily committed and there hasn’t been an appropriate finding that he will never be restored to competency. Remands with instructions to dismiss the charging information.

Douglas Denzell v. State of Indiana
49S02-1106-CR-340
Criminal. Affirms denial of Denzell’s motion to dismiss. Denzell does not have a viable fundamental-fairness argument.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Elmos Jewell v. City of Indianapolis
49A02-1010-OV-1228
Local ordinance violation. Affirms finding Jewell violated Section 531-728 of the Revised Code of the Consolidated City and Marion County concerning animal care and other animal matters. The failure to mention this section in the agreed judgment in a previous violation case did not indicate that the city waived enforcement of that provision.  

T.L. v. J.L.
54A01-1008-DR-386
Domestic relation. Affirms grant of father J.L.’s motion to prevent mother T.L. from relocating to Tennessee with their minor sons. Mother has shown good faith and legitimate reasons for proposing the relocation, but the trial court didn’t err in concluding that the relocation wasn’t in the children’s best interests.

State of Indiana v. Robert Rhodes
49A05-1012-CR-818
Criminal. Affirms grant of Rhodes' motion to suppress after he was charged with operating while intoxicated. The state failed to show that compliance with the statute regarding turn signaling was possible under the circumstances and Rhodes was not properly stopped for a traffic violation. The trial court did not err by determining that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Rhodes.

Richard D. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)

87A05-1101-CR-42
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony forgery, Class D felony fraud, and Class D felony receiving stolen property.

B.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1012-JV-791
Juvenile. Affirms modification of order awarding wardship of B.B. to the Indiana Department of Correction.

Karen Vanderbosch v. Thomas Vanderbosch (NFP)
02A03-1007-DR-357
Domestic relation. Reverses order finding that Thomas Vanderbosch overpaid child support, giving him a credit for that overpayment; and finding that one of his children repudiated his relationship with Thomas and thereby eliminated Thomas’ obligation to contribute to post-secondary educational expenses. Remands for further proceedings.

James D. Bailey, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1006-CR-337
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder in perpetration of a robbery.

Purnell L. Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
54A01-1011-CR-593
Criminal. Affirms order directing Moore serve the remaining four years of his suspended sentence following the revocation of his probation.

Elizabeth Noll v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A04-1010-CR-651
Criminal. Affirms conviction of intimidation as a Class A misdemeanor.

James D. Douglas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1010-CR-586
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order that Douglas serve one year of his remaining sentence in prison.

David Marsee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A03-1010-CR-520
Criminal. Affirms conviction of dealing in methamphetamine as a Class A felony.

Mark Rector Bryan v. Tammy A. Bryan (NFP)

82A01-1008-DR-416
Domestic relation. Affirms calculation of child support obligation of Mark Bryan.

Superior Mortgage Funding, LLC, Jeremie Sheneman, Michael Sheneman and Andrew Beam v. Gladys Zoleko and Paul Davies (NFP)
71A05-1007-PL-432
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Michael and Jeremie Sheneman’s motion to set aside judgment enforcing their settlement agreement with Gladys Zoleko and Paul Davies. Affirms denial of Michael’s motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ counsel.

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