ILNews

Opinions May 10, 2011

May 10, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Damion J. Wilkins v. State of Indiana
02S03-1010-CR-604
Criminal. Affirms trial court denial of motion to suppress. Wilkins is not entitled to suppression of the evidence on his claims of error related to the no-knock entry. Summarily affirms the Indiana Court of Appeals as to his other appellate claims.

Cornelius T. Lacey, Sr. v. State of Indiana
02S05-1010-CR-601
Criminal. Affirms denial of Lacey’s motion to suppress. The police did not have to present known supporting facts and obtain an advance judicial authorization for the no-knock entry. Summarily affirms the Indiana Court of Appeals as to all other issues.

City of Indianapolis, et al. v. Christine Armour, et al.
49S02-1007-CV-402
Civil. Reverses trial court grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs on their federal constitutional claims and remands with instructions to grant judgment for the City of Indianapolis on the plaintiffs’ federal equal protection claim. Holds the City of Indianapolis did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because forgiving only the outstanding assessment balances was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Maria Patricia (Franco) Suarez v. State of Indiana
02A05-1008-PC-508
Post conviction relief petition. Reverses trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s request for a complete record of her guilty plea hearing, including the Spanish language portions of the hearing, stating that under Indiana Administrative Rule 9(D), the guilty plea hearing was a public court record that should be available to Suarez.

State of Indiana v. Charles Black
48A02-1011-CR-1384
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s discharge of Charles Black, who had been charged with drug and other offenses, stating that by agreeing to a new trial date outside the parameters of Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C), Black acquiesced to his trial being delayed and waived his right to be discharged under Criminal Rule 4(C). Remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of H.A. and R.H.; K.H. v. IDCS (NFP)
45A05-1008-JT-550
Juvenile termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of mother’s parental rights.

Adoption of E.F.: R.F. and S.F. v. J.N. and K.N. (NFP)
67A01-1009-AD-502
Adoption. Affirms adoption of child by guardians.

Lavonta Henry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1009-CR-599
Criminal. Affirms sentence for four counts Class B felony burglary.

Jeffrey W. Brinkman v. Lisa A. Brinkman (NFP)
32A04-1008-DR-512
Domestic relation. Reverses order obligating Jeffrey Brinkman to pay Lisa Brinkman for the value of his retirement fund. Affirms that the trial court’s miscalculation of son’s 21st birthday was a harmless error and that the trial court did not err when it failed to modify Jeffrey’s child support obligation; the award of prejudgment interest was not an abuse of discretion.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions as of IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT