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
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