ILNews

Opinions, May 11, 2011

May 11, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Bloomfield State Bank v. United States of America
10-3939
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney.
Civil. Reverses summary judgment for the government in the bank’s suit that rent collected on a property in which the bank provided the mortgage should to the bank, not to the IRS to go toward a tax lien. The real estate that generated the rental income at issue in this case existed when the mortgage was issued and thus before the tax lien attached; the rental income was proceeds of that property, which preexisted the tax lien. Remands with directions to enter judgment for the bank.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

A.Y. v. Review Board
93A02-1007-EX-853
Civil. Reverses dismissal of A.Y.’s appeal challenging the determination she was ineligible for unemployment benefits. If A.Y. indeed called the administrative law judge’s office during the time allotted for her telephonic hearing, then she has shown good cause for reinstatement of her appeal. Remands to the review board for a finding as to whether A.Y. called the office during the time allotted for her hearing, and if so, then the review board shall reinstate her appeal.

Walter Lee Liddell v. State of Indiana
45A03-1006-CR-339
Criminal. Affirms convictions of rape, criminal confinement, battery, criminal deviate conduct, intimidation, sexual battery, and theft. Finds an insufficient showing of misconduct by the state to mandate exclusion of a witness, Liddell was able to depose the witness and cross-examine him, and Liddell doesn’t identify any specific, responsive measures that he was prevented from taking and that he would have pursued had the court granted a more substantial continuance.

Involuntary Commitment of J.K. (NFP)

18A02-1010-MH-1090
Mental health. Affirms decision to change temporary involuntary commitment for mental health reasons to a regular commitment.

Terrell Bryant Nelson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1008-CR-472
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony robbery.

Corey J. Kirts v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1009-CR-1092
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Andrew Cory v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1008-CR-566
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Rikki L. Vestal v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1010-CR-526
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Vestal serve the entirety of her suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Jeffrey S. White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
41A01-1010-CR-581
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal conversion.

Davy Lee Phipps v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1008-CR-970
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

J.J., et al., Alleged to be CHINS; J.W. & T.J. v. IDCS (NFP)
67A01-1011-JC-610
Juvenile. Affirms finding that children are children in need of services.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT