ILNews

Opinions Nov. 15, 2012

November 15, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
The following Indiana opinion was issued after IL deadline Wednesday:
U.S. v. Christopher L. Laraneta
2:10-cr-00013-RL-PRC-1
Criminal. Affirms 30-year prison sentence for conviction of seven violations of federal child pornography laws, and affirms monetary damages for victims, but orders that one victim’s judgment be reduced by the amount she has received in restitution from other cases. The appellate court also vacated the restitution order, requiring first a determination of whether Laraneta uploaded victim images.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Derek Asklar and Pauline Asklar v. David Gilb, Paul Garrett Smith d/b/a P.H. One Trucking, Empire Fire and Marine Ins. Co., d/b/a Zurich; Travelers Ideminity Co. of America
02A03-1204-CT-170
Civil tort/insurance. Affirms in part and reverses in part the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Empire, holding that Indiana law rather than Georgia law should apply in the case, but determining that Empire’s uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage limit is still only $75,000, as the trial court ruled.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of A.P. & Au.P.; M.H. & T.P. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
77A01-1202-JT-59
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights, holding that the trial court’s findings support its conclusion that there was a reasonable probability that continuation of the parent-child relationship poses a threat to the children’s well being.

Derek Clanton v. State of Indiana
49A02-1203-CR-198
Criminal. Reverses the trial court denial of a motion to suppress evidence discovered by an off-duty officer during a stop and frisk. The court found although the officer was off duty, he was acting in accordance with his training and therefore was not entitled to continue the search after he determined the suspect was not carrying a weapon.   

Kurt E. Hinkle v. State of Indiana (NFP)
12A05-1204-CR-199
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Jeffery Evans v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1203-CR-115
Criminal. Affirms conviction of four counts of Class C felony child molesting.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: B.T. (Minor Child), and B.J.T. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A05-1107-JT-710
Juvenile/termination of parental rights. Affirms termination of parental rights.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT