ILNews

Opinions March 1, 2012

March 1, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
United States of America v. Abel Flores-Lopez
10-3803
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Criminal. Affirms search of Flores-Lopez’s cell phone to obtain the phone’s number. Looking in a cell phone for just the cell phone’s number does not exceed what decisions like Robinson, dealing with the search of a container found on an arrested person, and Concepcion, which held a minimally invasive search may be lawful without a warrant, allow.

Thursday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Jeremy K. Warriner v. DC Marshall Jeep a/k/a DC Marshall, Inc.
49A02-1106-CT-489
Civil tort.  Affirms summary judgment for the dealership in Warriner’s suit alleging the dealership is strictly liable for the injuries he sustained in a car accident under the Indiana Products Liability Act and liable for negligent marketing of an unsafe product. Holds a manufacturer’s discharge in bankruptcy does not prevent a trial court from holding jurisdiction over that manufacturer. Judge Bailey concurs in part and concurs in result in part.

Gersh Zavodnik v. Katrin Gehrt and Imperator Bulldogs Kennel, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1105-CT-393
Civil. Affirms dismissal of 24 cases, but reverses with respect to three cases filed by Zavodnik against various people and businesses.

State of Indiana v. Mershaun Scott (NFP)
36A04-1108-CR-419
Criminal. Affirms grant of Scott’s motion to suppress.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT