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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT