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

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT