ILNews

Opinions June 24, 2014

June 24, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Tyrone L. Jones v. Richard Brown
12-3245
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms denial of Jones’ petition for habeas relief. Finds his trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective under Strickland.  

Indiana Court of Appeals
Roy Bayer Trust and Penny Harris v. Red Husky, LLC
18A02-1307-PL-581
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Red Husky LLC on its complaint seeking replevin of a Kenworth semi-tractor. The trial court’s award of $10,000 in damages based on deterioration of property value is supported by the evidence, but remands for a determination of whether Red Husky is entitled to additional damages for loss of use.

Willie J. Washington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1310-CR-427
Criminal.  Affirms sentence for Class C felony corrupt business influence and 20 counts of Class C felony forgery.

Antonio McCaster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1311-CR-544
Criminal.  Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in cocaine and habitual offender determination.

Melissa Brandon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1310-CR-521
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Eric Garver, Brian Garver, and Dawn Shepherd v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company (NFP)
64A03-1307-PL-292
Civil plenary.  Affirms the trial court correction determined the policy limit at $250,000 and the homeowner policy excluded further payment of damages claimed by the Garvers.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT