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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT