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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT