ILNews

Opinions May 29, 2012

May 29, 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

Jason Tye Myers v. Charles R. Deets III, Deets & Kennedy, and Great American Insurance Group
79A02-1108-CT-771
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for Edward Kennedy and the law firm on Myers’ claim for fraud against them and Deets. Myers couldn’t show that either Kennedy or the law firm was liable for Deets’ alleged fraudulent conduct. Reverses grant of Great American Insurance Group’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and remands for further proceedings. Judge Riley concurs in part and dissents in part.

Sisters of St. Francis Health Services, Inc. v. EON Properties, LLC
45A05-1110-PL-587
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of EON Properties regarding the Sisters of St. Francis Health Services’ liability under the lease agreements to pay the last two years of rent after another tenant left the premises early, but reverses regarding EON’s alleged damages. Remands for the continuation of the underlying litigation regarding damages.

Jason B. Saunders v. State of Indiana
06A01-1111-CR-596
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Saunders serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence. Saunders waived his delay and due process argument and the trial court did not err in ordering him to serve the entirety of his suspended sentence because of a probation violation.

Philip G. Yeary v. State of Indiana (NFP)
78A01-1111-CR-528
Criminal. Affirms denial of several motions challenging the authority and impartiality of the senior judge who presided over Yeary’s post-conviction motions.

James H. Privette v. Sherri E. Privette (Morris) (NFP)
30A01-1111-DR-534
Domestic relation. Affirms order James Privette pay Sherri Privette Morris an amount equal to 33 percent of certain pension payments he has received to date and that Morris is entitled to 33 percent of all future pension payments.

Richard Clark Shockley v. Tammie Anne Shockley (NFP)
79A02-1111-PO-1047
Protective order. Affirms in part the issuance of a protective order against Richard Shockley for the protection of his former wife and her fiancé. Reverses the protective order as to Shockley’s teenage daughter.

Laura L. Mosier v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Department of Health (NFP)
93A02-1112-EX-1092
Agency appeal. Affirms dismissal by review board of Mosier’s appeal of the decision she was discharged for just cause.

Michael D. McGee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1110-CR-566
Criminal. Affirms order revoking home detention and order McGee serve his entire sentence in the Department of Correction.

Ryan Sheckles v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A04-1108-CR-423
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for two counts of murder.

Damien Townsend v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1109-CR-471
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Cornelio Martinez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A02-1111-CR-1023
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and determination that Martinez is a habitual controlled substance offender.

John R. Vicars v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1109-CR-403
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to 15 cases for the week ending May 25.
 

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT