ILNews

Opinions Nov. 15, 2011

November 15, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Jesse Puckett v. State of Indiana
90A02-1104-CR-369
Criminal. Reverses sentencing decision that required Puckett to serve his entire previously suspended four-year sentence after Puckett admitted to violating his probation for Class C felony child molesting. The trial judge’s statement of reasons for the sentence is problematic. Holds it is improper when revoking probation for a trial court to find that the defendant actually committed a more serious crime than the one or ones of which he or she was originally convicted. Remands for another hearing regarding the revocation of probation.

Clayter Hale v. SS Liquors, Inc., and Safe Step, Inc.
73A01-1104-CT-179
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for SS Liquors and Safe Step Inc. on Hale’s personal injury negligence action. Declines to say that slipping and falling in a bathtub while taking a shower is something that does not happen “in the ordinary course of things.” There is no evidence that the bathtub at the time of Hale’s fall was unreasonably safe.

David R. Camm v. State of Indiana
87A01-1102-CR-25
Criminal. Reverses denial of Camm’s petition for appointment of a special prosecutor. Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson’s cancelled literary contract created an irreversible, actual conflict of interest with his duty to the people of the state of Indiana. Remands for appointment of a special prosecutor and for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of J.K., J.G. v. A.K. (NFP)
66A03-1005-JP-345
Juvenile. Affirms order denying father J.G.’s motion to terminate grandmother A.K.’s temporary guardianship of his daughter J.K. and the order granting A.K.’s petition for permanent guardianship over the daughter.

Roland Devoe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1104-CR-312
Criminal. Affirms decision to join two causes against Devoe.

Gregory Brooks, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1012-CR-766
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of murder in perpetration of a robbery.

David J. Wierenga v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1101-CR-159
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony auto theft and habitual offender status.

Joshua D. Sutton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A05-1104-CR-223
Criminal. Affirms convictions of three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor as Class A misdemeanors.

Jason Ross v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A05-1102-CR-82
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator and Class A misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia.

North Lake Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC d/b/a North Lake Rehabilitation Center v. The Estate of Cocteus Mason by Special Administrator, Tyniesha Spears (NFP)
45A03-1105-CT-229
Civil tort. Affirms denial of North Lake’s motion for preliminary determination of a proposed complaint filed with the Indiana Department of Insurance.

Wilson Makori v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1103-CR-103
Criminal. Affirms convictions Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated, which was enhanced to a Class D felony based on a previous OWI conviction, resisting law enforcement and criminal recklessness.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to one case for the week ending Nov. 11.
 

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT