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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT