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. 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