ILNews

Opinions Nov. 1, 2011

November 1, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Rose Acre Farms Inc. v. Columbia Casualty Co. and National Fire Insurance Co. of Hartford
11-1599
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for the insurers on whether they have to defend Rose Acre Farms in the antitrust complaint. The suit for which Rose Acre wants a defense makes no claim that the policy could be thought to cover.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kenny D. Lee v. State of Indiana
71A03-1103-CR-118
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A felony possession of cocaine. The portion of the warrant allowing for the search of all vehicles is invalid because of vague language, so all evidence seized pursuant to the invalid language – in this case, Lee’s statements to police after a traffic stop – must be suppressed. The evidence also doesn’t support that Lee knew of the cocaine and had the ability to control it.

P.M.T., Inc. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and L.A.
93A02-1105-EX-389
Agency appeal. Affirms award of unemployment insurance benefits to L.A. Employer P.M.T.’s attendance policy was unreasonable because it didn’t provide exemptions for verified emergencies nor did it protect employees. L.A.’s absences were the results of circumstances beyond her control.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.D., A.W.D., A.M.D., and A.L.D.; M.A.P. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
50A03-1103-JT-98
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Nexus D. Turner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1103-CR-96
Criminal. Affirms three-year sentence for Class C felony robbery.

Robert D. Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1011-CR-663
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony attempted dealing in methamphetamine. Remands for vacation of Class D felony possession of methamphetamine conviction because it was merged without being vacated.

Michael A. Maxie v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1103-CR-117
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for battery on a pregnant woman as a Class C felony and Class A misdemeanor interference with reporting a crime.

Ivernon D. Wiseman, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1103-CR-83
Criminal. Affirms 16-year and eight-month sentence for Class C felony criminal confinement, Class D felony residential entry and Wiseman’s habitual offender status.

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