ILNews

Opinions March 9, 2012

March 9, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Tax Court and Indiana Supreme Court had issued no opinions at IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

United States of America v. Anthony Raupp
11-2215
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Criminal. Affirms District Court’s determination that Raupp was a “career offender,” due to a previous crime of violence, and affirms 100-month sentence. Judge Diane Wood dissented, holding that the majority relied on a note in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines that is for agency interpretation of its own rule.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kenneth A. Lainhart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
24A01-1108-CR-371
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Town of Griffith and the Griffith Fire Department v. T.M. Somers Fire Equipment, Inc. (NFP)

45A03-1107-CT-302
Civil tort. Reverses trial court’s denial of Town of Griffith and Griffith Fire Department’s motion for summary judgment, holding that T.M. Somers Fire Equipment did not submit a timely open door policy complaint and also failed to timely file its notice of tort claim.

A.V. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
12A01-1108-JT-409
Juvenile. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

 

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