ILNews

Opinions May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Allison Riggle v. State of Indiana
49A05-1109-CR-472
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. The traffic stop was invalid because Riggle did not commit a traffic violation. Remands with instructions to vacate her conviction.

Latisha Lawson v. State of Indiana
02A03-1107-CR-350
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder, Class C felony neglect of a dependent, Class D felony neglect of a dependent and Class D felony battery. There is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s rejection of Lawson’s insanity defense.

Thomas A. Neu and Elizabeth A. Neu, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Brett Gibson
49A02-1109-MF-842
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses denial of the Neus’ motion for relief from judgment and their request for attorney fees following Gibson’s full credit bid during a sheriff’s sale of real property located in Michigan. Remands with instructions to award the Neus reasonable attorney fees in litigating this action since August 2007.

Larry R. Busche, II v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1108-CR-418
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony rape.

Raymond H. Mims v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1109-CR-499
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony forgery.

Sharon D. Collins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1109-CR-490
Criminal. Affirms imposition of consecutive sentences for Collins’ four Class B felony arson convictions, but remands with instructions to resentence her because the arson sentences violate the statutory maximum for felony convictions arising out of an episode of criminal conduct.

Gary W. Ferguson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A05-1108-CR-434
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug.

Seth T. Lipscomb v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1109-CR-443
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class D felony theft.

In Re the Estate of Nancy Jean McMillen, Donna McMillen v. Thomas Kane (NFP)
71A03-1107-ES-324
Estate, supervised. Affirms denial of Donna McMillen’s petition in which she sought to remove Kane as the personal representative of the estate and as trustee of a trust established by Nancy McMillen’s will, of which Donna McMillen was the named beneficiary.

Michael West v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1108-PC-451
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Russell W. Yerden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-PC-1010
Post conviction. Affirms in part and reverses in part denial of petition for post-conviction relief. Remands for correction of Yerden’s sentence.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT