ILNews

Opinions May 5, 2011

May 5, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. John L. Norris
10-1612
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence. The police officers were acting pursuant to a valid warrant and in a reasonable manner.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Patrick M. McGrath v. Linda S. McGrath
46A03-1008-DR-429
Domestic relation. Reverses valuation of certain real estate property in the decree of dissolution. The trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider the substantial change in value of the property as expressed in the 2009 appraisal report to calculate the total marital assets and distribution of the property. Remand with instructions. Judge Friedlander concurs in result.

Lenn Ivy v. State of Indiana
49A04-1010-CR-662
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to modify sentence. Ivy may not seek a modification of his sentence under the terms of his plea agreement.

Michael Dewayne Lloyd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1011-CR-1390
Criminal. Affirms imposition of previously suspended sentence as a result of work release violations.

Marc A. Bernero v. State of Indiana, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1009-PL-1082
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for the Indiana Secretary of State’s Office and the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles on Bernero’s complaint for declaratory judgment seeking enforcement of the State Employee Appeals Commission’s order rescinding his termination.

Willie Dumes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1008-CR-910
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after license was forfeited for life and revocation of probation.

L.H. v. D.H. (NFP)
15A04-1009-DR-552
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imputed minimum wage income to both mother and father. Reverses trial court’s retroactively modifying father’s child support obligation to a date prior to the filing of his petition to modify child support. Remands for further proceedings.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT