Opinions March 25, 2014

March 25, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Joanna S. Robinson v. State of Indiana
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of one count of Class B felony robbery.

Richard Antonio Clark v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit