ILNews

Opinions March 25, 2014

March 25, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Joanna S. Robinson v. State of Indiana
20S04-1307-CR-471
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of Robinson’s motion to suppress. Agrees with trial court in giving deference to deputy’s testimony that he initiated the traffic stop after observing Robinson drive off the roadway twice even though the video from the deputy’s in-car camera only shows Robinson weaving onto the fog line. Rucker dissents, asserting giving credit to the deputy’s testimony over the video amounts to reweighing evidence.

State of Indiana v. Darrell L. Keck
67S01-1403-CR-179
Criminal. Affirms the trial court’s grant of Keck’s motion to suppress on the grounds the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop. Upholds trial court’s finding that the poor conditions of county roads necessitated Keck driving left-of-center to avoid the potholes.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Marjorie O. Lesley v. Robert T. Lesley
79A02-1305-DR-472
Domestic. Reverses an order granting rehabilitation maintenance for Marjorie O. Lesley, holding that the court lacked authority to re-evaluate a final dissolution order after she later was found to qualify for disability benefits from the Social Security Administration. Remands for support. In a separate concurring opinion, Judge John Baker wrote the court could have reserved judgment on the disability issue by continuing the hearing at which the final order was issued to await SSA’s determination on disability.

Victor Hugo Mesa v. State of Indiana
36A01-1308-MI-362
Miscellaneous/forfeiture. Affirms forfeiture of a vehicle on the state’s summary judgment motion, holding that Mesa did not properly request a summary judgment hearing and that no issue of material fact existed regarding whether the vehicle was seizable under Indiana Code § 34-24-1-1(a)(3).

Jerid T. Bennett v. State of Indiana
59A05-1306-CR-277
Criminal. Vacates a conviction of Class D felony possession of cocaine as double jeopardy for a conviction in the same case of Class B felony dealing in cocaine, but otherwise lets stand the dealing conviction as well as convictions of Class D felony maintaining a common nuisance and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Robert Morris Endris v. Jennifer Lynn Endris (NFP)
41A01-1303-DR-130
Domestic relation. Reverses visitation order that stopped visits between Robert Endris and his daughter and modified parenting time with the other children without explanation. Also reverses order that paternal grandmother, who was not a party to the dissolution, host the children during bi-annual visits. Remands to the trial court to enter an order either complying with Parenting Time Guidelines or explaining the deviation when modifying the visitation for the other children. Affirms denial of Endris’ motion to modify child support.

Vernon Robinson v. Estates At Eagle's Pointe (NFP)
52A02-1306-PL-528
Civil plenary. Reverses the trial court’s order to the extent that it awarded the Estates $57,375 but affirms the remainder of the order. Remands for entry of judgment in favor of Estate in the amount of $46,375 plus attorneys fee of $25,000 and costs.

Dennis Knight v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1309-CR-475
Criminal. Affirms conviction of one count of Class B felony robbery.

Richard Antonio Clark v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1308-CR-337
Criminal. Affirms three-year sentence for Class D felony strangulation and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

The Indiana Tax Court did not post any opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did not submit any Indiana opinions by 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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT