ILNews

Opinions June 6, 2012

June 6, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Keith D. Jackson v. State of Indiana
20A03-1105-CR-222
Criminal. Reverses sentence for possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and remands for resentencing, holding the trial court erred by imposing a suspended sentence of four years contrary to the accepted plea agreement.

W.D., a minor by his parents R.D. and S.D., and R.D. and S.D., individually v. City of Nappanee
20A05-1112-CT-698
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s summary judgment in favor of city of Nappanee, holding that there was no breach of duty of care on the city’s part when a child was found floating face-down in a public pool and rescued by lifeguards who resuscitated him.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.W., K.K., Ke.K., & L.W.; and J.K. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
85A05-1109-JT-591
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s termination of father’s parental rights to his four minor children, holding that the trial court’s findings supported the conclusion that the conditions causing the children’s removal from their father’s home will not be remedied.

Teri Woenkhaus v. David Woenkhaus (NFP)
34A02-1111-DR-1041
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s property division order in dissolution of marriage, but remands for the court to award the parties’ income tax refunds to the wife.

Eric Liscomb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-715
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for felony murder, Class B felony robbery, Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license and Class C felony conspiracy to commit robbery.

Robert Johnson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1108-CR-712
Criminal. Affirms convictions of felony murder and Class B felony robbery.

M. Loren Fugate v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1110-CR-529
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and home detention and the order that Fugate serve the remainder of his sentence in the Department of Correction.

Frank E. Puzynski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1111-CR-590
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class C felony operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life.

Jermaine Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1109-PC-881
Post conviction. Remands with instructions to vacate Young’s conviction of Class C felony possession of cocaine, holding that his attorney’s failure to raise the issue of double jeopardy constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Affirms the court in all other respects.

Mark Van Eaton and Cynthia Van Eaton Vallimont v. German American Bancorp (NFP)
42A01-1108-MF-434
Mortgage foreclosure. Remands for the court to amend receivership order.

Faye E. Warfield v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and IDWD U.I. Claims Adjudication (NFP)
93A02-1110-EX-915
Miscellaneous. Affirms Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board’s dismissal of Warfield’s appeal.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT