ILNews

Opinions June 14, 2013

June 14, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jason Findlay v. Jonathan Lendermon
12-3881
Civil/excessive use of force. Reverses District Court denial of summary judgment in favor of Deputy Sheriff Jonathan Lendermon, holding that Findlay has not met a burden of proof showing a violation of a clearly established right when Lendermon grabbed his arm to prevent him from picking up a memory card believed to contain surveillance video of Findlay’s admission of trespassing.

Indiana Supreme Court
Robert Bowen v. State of Indiana
08S02-1306-CR-423
Criminal. Affirms Court of Appeals ruling affirming Bowen’s convictions of and 14-year sentence for Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Class C felony dealing in a schedule IV controlled substance, Class D felony possession of a controlled substance and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The justices remanded, though, with instructions for the trial court to issue an amended sentencing order that included a reasonably detailed recitation of the trial court’s reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence on a single charge.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Serafin Sanchez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1206-CR-318
Criminal. Affirms in a divided opinion the jury convictions of two counts of murder over Sanchez’s insanity defense. Chief Judge Margret Robb dissented, arguing that a jury instruction erroneously raised the burden of proof for the insanity defense from a preponderance of the evidence to beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reggie T. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1211-CR-569
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony possession of a controlled substance and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.  

Jimmy D. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A04-1204-PC-196
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief from convictions of Class A felony attempted murder and carrying a handgun without a license.

Nathan Warren v. State of Indiana (NFP)

03A05-1201-CR-31
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony stalking, Class D felony stalking, and Class D felony attempted inducement of obstruction of justice. Remands for the trial court to calculate Warren’s credit for time served prior to sentencing.

Larry Robert David, II, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Lisa Marie David, Deceased v. William Kleckner, M.D. (NFP)
49A02-1301-MI-13
Miscellaneous/estate. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of William Kleckner, M.D.

Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline Friday.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT