Opinions May 10, 2011

May 10, 2011
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court
Damion J. Wilkins v. State of Indiana
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
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.
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
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
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)
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)
Adoption. Affirms adoption of child by guardians.

Lavonta Henry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for four counts Class B felony burglary.

Jeffrey W. Brinkman v. Lisa A. Brinkman (NFP)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.