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.
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!