ILNews

Opinions May 2, 2011

May 2, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. David Lee Runyan
10-3400
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge James T. Moody.
Criminal. Affirms 63-year sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Runyan argued the District Court sentenced him without considering the care he gave his then-terminally ill father, but his argument rested on past caregiving rather than present caregiving and the District Court didn’t need to address it. Also finds the District Court’s commentary at sentencing to not be impermissibly one-sided.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. C.D.
55A01-1007-JV-342
Juvenile. Reverses grant of C.D.’s motion to suppress evidence. C.D. was not undergoing custodial interrogation when he answered a police officer’s questions and made an incriminating admission while in the principal’s office on suspicion of being impaired. He was not deprived of his right to meaningful conversation with his parents when the officer examined him. It was also reasonable for the principal to check C.D.’s backpack for marijuana or paraphernalia after it was believed C.D. was under the influence of marijuana. Remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of S.S.; I.S. v. IDCS (NFP)
29A05-1010-JT-646
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Sean Boylan v. Horvath Communications Inc., et al. (NFP)
71A04-1012-PL-776
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Horvath Communications and Jacqueline Horvath in Sean Boylan’s action alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.

Edward Shaffer v. Wells Fargo Bank (NFP)
49A05-1007-MF-452
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment for Wells Fargo Bank after Edward Shaffer defaulted on mortgage payments. Affirms ordering of a $75,000 bond to stay the eviction proceedings.

C.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1009-JV-1089
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for committing what would be Class B felony robbery and Class A misdemeanor battery if committed by an adult.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted one transfer and denied two cases for the week ending April 29.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT