ILNews

Opinions March 8, 2011

March 8, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Lisa Gray v. State of Indiana
82A01-1005-CR-223
Criminal. Reverses Gray’s conviction of possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor. She contended there was insufficient evidence that she constructively possessed the marijuana. Judge Cale Bradford dissents, writing that Gray was in close proximity to the marijuana and that it was in plain view, as officers had testified at trial.

Anderson Property Management LLC v. H. Anthony Miller, Jr. LLC.
43A03-1003-PL-239
Civil. Reverses trial court’s holding that the mediated agreement is enforceable and the trial court’s order that the parties execute and record the amendment to negative easement and perform their respective obligations of the mediated agreement. Also vacates trial court’s order that each party shall pay its own attorneys fees and instructs the trial court to consider this issue when it enters final judgment in this proceeding. Remands with instructions.

Mark Lesh v. Richard Chandler and Marilyn Chandler
44A05-1003-PL-197
Civil. Affirms trial court’s conclusion Lesh’s actions amounted to a private nuisance. Reverses trial court’s decision to extend the protective order dated April 26, 2006, because the proceedings on which that order was based were dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of the parties on Sept. 28, 2006. As the protective order was not in effect after Sept. 28, 2006, the finding that Lesh violated its terms is reversed. Remands for redaction of the language in Judgment Items C and G regarding the protective order. Also affirms the permanent injunction entered against Lesh, the contempt finding against Lesh, and the damages awarded in favor of the Chandlers.

Anna Quimby v. Becovic Management Group, Inc.
49A05-0912-CV-747
Civil. Affirms dismissal of Quimby’s wage claim against Becovic Management Group. She had assigned that claim to the Department of Labor, where it was resolved. Claimants who proceed under the Wage Claim statute submit their claim to the DOL rather than filing a complaint with the trial court. Immediately above her signature, the form filed with the DOL stated, “Pursuant to IC 22-2-9-5, I hereby assign to the Commissioner of Labor all my rights, title and interest in and to the above certified claim for processing in accordance with the provisions of IC 22-2-9-1, et seq.”

In the Matter of J.C., Alleged to be CHINS; K.M. and J.C. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1007-JC-878
Juvenile. Affirms CHINS determination and remands for corrections to juvenile court’s orders that improperly reflect that J.C. was removed from the home during the underlying proceedings.

Robert D. Baxton, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1006-CR-294
Criminal. Affirms conviction of robbery as a Class B felony.

Joseph M. Ferry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-379
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion.

Glen Leroy Rusher v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1006-CR-656
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

A.G. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1007-JV-450
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent child for receiving stolen property, which would be a Class D felony if committed by an adult; and criminal trespass, which would be a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

Town of Highland and Highland Sanitary District v. Lee Lieberman, et al. (NFP)
45A05-1003-CT-178
Civil. Affirms denial of motion for summary judgment by Town of Highland and the Highland Sanitary District, and remands for trial.

Anthony Scott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-810
Criminal. Affirms Scott’s conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Vincent Demus v. State of Indiana (NFP)
66A03-1008-CR-442
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of marijuana, Class D felony resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor reckless driving, and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle with a controlled substance in his body.

Mark Kennedy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1005-CR-265
Criminal. Affirms convictions of attempted murder, a Class A felony; and carrying a handgun without a license, a Class A misdemeanor. Also affirms adjudication that found him to be a habitual offender.

L.H. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, et al. (NFP)
93A02-1003-EX-327
Civil. Affirms decision of the review board to deny L.H.’s unemployment benefits.

Devon Walton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A05-1007-CR-483
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement by fleeing.

Willie J. Herman, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1006-CR-359
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony possession of marijuana.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT