ILNews

Opinions March 7, 2012

March 7, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Angela C. Garrett v. State of Indiana
32A05-1105-CR-239
Criminal. Reverses Class A felony conviction of dealing methamphetamine, finding that the trial court should have instructed the jury on a lesser-included offense of possession of methamphetamine. Remands for a new trial.

Ronald E. Izynski and Linda Izynski, et al. v. Chicago Title Insurance Company
45A04-1006-PL-277
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s judgment in favor of Chicago Title, remanding for the court to determine whether the Izynskis might have an action for negligent misrepresentation against Chicago Title regarding a real estate easement dispute, and if so whether the elements of that tort are satisfied and to what extent they sustained damages.

Antwain D. Sanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1107-CR-313
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement with a vehicle, finding the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.  

Clinton E. Sams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A05-1108-CR-403
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class B felony dealing in a controlled substance and trial court’s finding that defendant is a habitual offender.

Deer Park Management v. Giovanni Zanovello (NFP)
53A01-1104-SC-161
Small claims. Affirms judgment in favor of tenant Giovanni Zanovello, as Deer Park Management did not provide him with timely notice in a move-out letter. Judge Carr Darden dissents, finding the move-out letter was timely and he would reverse the trial court’s decision.
 
Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of M.B., J.B., & T.B.; Y.B. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1104-JT-397
Parental rights termination. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights to two children, finding clear and convincing evidence to support the judgment.

Marquis T. Hawkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1108-CR-441
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, finding sufficient evidence to support the determination that defendant knowingly fled from authorities.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT