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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT