ILNews

Opinions March 27, 2014

March 27, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana
18S02-1304-CR-297
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B misdemeanor failure to report a student’s rape allegation to DCS or local law enforcement based on the statute that requires a school to report instances of child abuse. The reporting requirement is not unconstitutionally vague and there is sufficient evidence to sustain Smith’s conviction. Justices Rucker and Chief Justice Dickson dissent in a separate opinion.

Front Row Motors, LLC and Jerramy Johnson v. Scott Jones
49S02-1311-PL-758
Civil plenary. Reverses denial of Front Row Motors’ motion to set aside default judgment. The trial court lacked jurisdiction over the dealership at the time the default was entered.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Douglas J. Allison v. Heather Pepkowski
64A05-1311-PO-554
Protective order. Dismisses appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the court’s extension granted a temporary protection order, which is not appealable as of right, Allison was required to seek a discretionary interlocutory appeal, which he did not do.

Bobby Wine v. State of Indiana (NFP)
85A05-1307-CR-382
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in a Schedule I, II or III controlled substance.

In the Matter of the Adoption of L.T.: J.M. and S.M. v. C.T. (NFP)
49A05-1310-AD-493
Adoption. Affirms order by Marion Superior Court, Probate Division, terminating the guardianship of L.T. by his maternal grandparents on grounds that Hamilton Superior Court 1 lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over L.T.’s guardianship. Remands for further proceedings, including that the parties immediately place L.T. in her father’s custody.

Ty C. Wilkerson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1307-CR-609
Criminal. Affirms conviction and eight-year sentence for Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury.

Mardel Hill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1309-CR-377
Criminal. Affirms grant of state’s motion to join charges under two separate cause numbers for trial.

Austin M. Scholl v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1309-CR-801
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct and Class D felony sexual battery.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.

 

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