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. 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