ILNews

Opinions May 22, 2012

May 22, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of V.H.; J.H. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services

49A02-1110-JC-947
Juvenile. Reverses juvenile court’s grant of CHINS petition and vacates the court’s participation order, holding that the CHINS adjudication and participation decree were erroneous.

Dwayne Rhoiney v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1107-CR-650
Criminal. Affirms resentencing by trial court for felony murder, Class B felony criminal confinement and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Ohio Farmers Insurance Company and S.C. Nestel, Inc. v. Indiana Drywall & Acoustics, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1106-CC-534
Civil collections. Affirms trial court’s denial of Nestel’s motion for summary judgment, but reverses the denial of Ohio Farmers’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Indiana Drywall’s bond claim.

Charles E. Justise, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1105-CR-408
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A and Class C felony child molesting.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT