ILNews

Opinions May 24, 2012

May 24, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Finance Center Federal Credit Union v. Ronnie D. Brand, Debora J. Brand and GMAC Mortgage, LLC
49A02-1111-MF-1089
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms partial summary judgment in favor of GMAC regarding the priority of the GMAC Mortgage and Finance Center Federal Credit Union mortgages. Equity should not allow the Finance Center to gain an unexpectedly elevated priority because of any negligence of GMAC that did not harm Finance Center.

Samantha Adams v. State of Indiana
49A05-1107-CR-372
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to dismiss. The trial court did not deny Adams due process in denying her motions to dismiss her dealing and possession of marijuana charges. Finds the definition of marijuana is not vague and Indiana Code 35-48-4-11 is not unconstitutional.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of K.N., C.M., and K.M.; M.M. (Mother) and C.M. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
79A04-1109-JT-541
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Charles Hunter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1111-CR-1000
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and imposition of the five-year suspended portion of Hunter’s sentence.

Christopher Master v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A01-1108-CR-361
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felonies rape and criminal deviate conduct.

Darryl Anderson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1107-CR-601
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony rape, Class C felony criminal confinement and Class A misdemeanor battery.

David West v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1111-CR-1013
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following revocation of probation.

Bret Beiler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
38A02-1109-CR-839
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

In Re the Paternity of B.C., M.L. v. D.N., Jr. (NFP)
05A02-1110-JP-964
Juvenile. Reverses decision to set aside paternity affidavit executed by D.C. and N.E. and the May 26, 2009, paternity order.

John W. Mitchell v. American Acceptance Co., LLC, as Assignee of Chase Bank USA, N.A. (NFP)
02A03-1108-CC-366
Civil collection. Affirms grant of summary judgment to American Acceptance Co. on its complaint for collection of credit card debt.

Joshua M. Santiago v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1109-CR-493
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felonies stalking and burglary, Class D felony intimidation, Class A misdemeanors invasion of privacy, battery and resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief, and adjudication as a habitual offender.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT