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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT