ILNews

Opinions March 19, 2012

March 19, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court
Jimmie E. Jones, Jr. v. State of Indiana
29S02-1108-CR-511
Criminal. Adopts Court of Appeals opinion in full, which affirmed the refusal by the trial court to give Jones’ tendered instructions on reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter as lesser-included offenses to the murder charge. The evidence didn’t support a reckless homicide instruction and the charging information for the murder count foreclosed an involuntary manslaughter instruction.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re the Paternity of C.S.: M.R. (Mother) v. R.S. (Father)
53A01-1108-JP-381
Juvenile. Affirms order granting a petition for modification of custody filed by father. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that C.S.’s physical and mental/academic maturation constituted a substantial change warranting modification of custody. The trial court did not misinterpret Indiana Code 31-17-2-8 in the process of drawing conclusions from its findings, nor did it err in relying on the updated custody evaluation.

Robert Hardin v. Carlotta Hardin
18A05-1105-DR-301
Domestic relation. Reverses and remands as to the trial court’s division of Robert Hardin’s pension, including the cost to Carlotta Hardin of the survivor’s benefit. Affirms as to all other issues. The trial court used an incorrect coverture fraction and erred in dividing the pension.

Charles L. Eckard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1108-CR-382
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony battery.

Juan Emerson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1102-PC-95
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Kelly Scott Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1111-PC-651
Post conviction. Affirms denial of motion to withdraw petition for post-conviction relief and denial of that petition.

T.N.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-1105-JV-263
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent for committing what would be sexual battery if committed by an adult.

Mark Wiley v. Midwest Poultry Services, LP (NFP)
93A02-1107-EX-593
Agency appeal. The full board of the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana erred in denying Wiley’s claim for the reimbursement of costs associated with his wheelchair because the undisputed evidence reveals his impairment is reduced by having a working motorized wheelchair and the parties’ agreement did not waive this claim. Further, based on a plain reading of the agreement, the board did not err in awarding Wiley reimbursement for the cost of repairing the chair lift added to his pick-up truck. Remands to the full board to enter an amended order consistent with this opinion.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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