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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT