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

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