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

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT