ILNews

Opinions June 3, 2014

June 3, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinions were issued after IL deadline Monday.
Jacob Fuller v.State of Indiana

48S02-1406-CR-364
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of murder but remands to the trial court with orders to reduce the aggregate sentence from 150 years in prison to 85 years in prison. Fuller was 15 when he participated in the shooting deaths of Anderson residents Keya Prince and Stephen Streeter with another minor and an 18-year-old. Though the trial court sentence was within the allowable range, imposing it would mean denial of hope and assurance he would remain in prison the rest of his days, making good behavior or character improvement immaterial.

Martez Brown v. State of Indiana
48S02-1406-CR-363
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of murder but remands to the trial court with orders to reduce the aggregate sentence from 150 years in prison to 80 years in prison. Brown was 16 when he participated in the shooting deaths of Anderson residents Keya Prince and Stephen Streeter with another minor and an 18-year-old. Though the trial court sentence was within the allowable range, imposing it would mean denial of hope and assurance he would remain in prison the rest of his days, making good behavior or character improvement immaterial.

June 3
Indiana Supreme Court

Virginia E. Alldredge and Julia A. Luker, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Venita Hargis v. The Good Samaritan Home, Inc.
82S01-1305-CT-363
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment, holding that a wrongful death claim against Good Samaritan may proceed. Holds that the Fraudulent Concealment Statute may apply to the Wrongful Death Act’s two-year filing period. Remands for proceedings.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a/k/a Celadon Trucking Services of Indiana v. United Equipment Leasing, LLC
30A01-1311-CC-507
Collections. Affirms trial court grant of United Equipment’s motion for relief from a May 31, 2012, order. The trial court ruling is sustainable under the trial court’s inherent power to reconsider, vacate or modify any previous order so long as the case has not proceeded to final judgment.

5200 Keystone Limited Realty, LLC v. Filmcraft Laboratories, Inc., Eric J. Spiklemire, Portrait America, Inc., A.C. Demaree, Inc., Russ Dellen, Inc., Clean Car, Inc., et al. (NFP)
49A04-1306-CT-311
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Filmcraft, Spicklemire, et al. on Keystone’s property tax claim.

Michael G. Stoner v. Amy M. Stoner (McIntire) (NFP)
38A02-1310-DR-879
Domestic. Affirms denial of father’s petition for permanent change of custody and modification of support.

Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT