ILNews

Opinions June 29, 2012

June 29, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Zachary Medlock v. Trustees of Indiana University, et al.
11-3288
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Dismisses Medlock’s appeal of the denial of his request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of a one-year suspension from the school. The appeal is moot because the 7th Circuit cannot grant any effectual relief.

Indiana Supreme Court
Walter Lyles v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. At trial, there was evidence that the defendant was neither an owner nor an employee of the bank as well as evidence that the bank manager had authority to ask customers to leave the bank premises. This evidence, taken together, refuted each of the most reasonably apparent sources from which a person in the defendant's circumstances might have derived a contractual interest in the bank's real property: as an owner, as an employee, and as an account holder. Justice Rucker dissents.

Indiana Court of Appeals
City of Carmel v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Greg Park
93A02-1108-EX-841
Agency appeal. Reverses decision by the review board that Park was discharged, but not for just cause. The city of Carmel demonstrated that police officer Park’s actions were in violation of its rules and that his arrest of a juvenile, under the circumstances, constituted a failure to obey a lawful order under the employer’s rules.

T.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services
79A04-1110-JT-594
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights. Declines mother’s invitation to depart from the clear and unambiguous language of Indiana’s termination statute in order to judicially legislate an exception whereby mentally handicapped parents are immune from involuntary termination proceedings.

Doug Wynkoop v. The Town of Cedar Lake, Indiana, and the Town Council of the Town of Cedar Lake, Indiana
45A05-1111-PL-602
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Wynkoop’s former employer on the issue of whether he possessed a constitutionally protected property interest in his position with the town of Cedar Lake so that he was entitled to due process before he was fired. The procedural manual emphasizes the at-will nature of the employment. Chief Judge Robb concurs in result with opinion.

Jeffrey A. Weisheit v. State of Indiana
10A01-1202-CR-58
Criminal. Affirms denial of bail for Weisheit, who is charged with two counts of murder and one count of Class A felony arson and faces the death penalty. Weisheit failed to meet the burden of proof that the state’s case against him is not strong enough to allow him to post bail.

Jennifer A. Kreegar v. Fifth Third Mortgage Company (NFP)
34A02-1110-MF-940
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms denial of motion to correct errors and summary judgment ruling in favor of Fifth Third Mortgage Co.

Jack Haut v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A05-1109-CR-512
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony reckless homicide.

John Hollins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1109-PC-553
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Louis Board v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1111-CR-581
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Michael W. Pine, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1111-CR-588
Criminal. Affirms sentence for dealing in methamphetamine as a Class B felony and three counts of Class C felony neglect of a dependent.

Reuben Garcia v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A05-1112-CR-646
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony dealing in marijuana.

Harold L. Tice, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A04-1110-PC-631
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Joseph A. Taylor v. Sgt. Rinehart (NFP)
48A02-1110-PL-993
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of complaint alleging the Pendleton Correction Facility’s disciplinary procedures denied Taylor certain rights.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of C.C., Minor Child; C.C., Mother v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, and Lake County Court Appointed Special Advocate (NFP)
45A04-1110-JT-591
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Kenneth Lainhart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A04-1105-CR-299
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for Class B felonies conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and manufacturing methamphetamine.

In Re: The Marriage of L.R. v. J.R. (NFP)
45A04-1110-DR-526
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution decree that ordered J.R. to pay $368 a week in child support, divided the marital property, found L.R. in contempt for willfully violating a provisional order, and ordered the parties pay their own attorney fees.

P.T. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1111-JV-1063
Juvenile. Reverses adjudication as a delinquent child for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass when committed by an adult.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT