ILNews

Opinions Nov. 16, 2011

November 16, 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

Green River Motel Management of Dale, LLC, et al. v. State of Indiana
74A05-1104-PL-169
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Green River’s motion for summary judgment. A state action that merely alters the flow of traffic or causes access by a more circuitous route can’t give rise to a taking as a matter of law. Affirms on all other respects.

Geneva-Roth Capital, Inc., et al. v. Akeala Edwards
49A02-1101-PL-43
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of LoanPoint USA’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Edwards and a purported class of people who got small, short-term payday loans from LoanPoint USA. Having concluded that the National Arbitration Forum as the arbitral forum was integral to the arbitration agreement, and given that the NAF is no longer available to conduct consumer arbitrations, the arbitration provision is null and void on grounds of impossibility.

Daniel Stevenson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1103-CR-124
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and sexual misconduct with a minor as a Class B felony and a Class C felony.

M.J. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-JV-329
Juvenile. Affirms dispositional order that found M.J. to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation.

Roy M. Strong and Independent Associates, Inc. v. Bertha McKinster, individually and as Attorney in fact for Robert McKinster (NFP)
49A02-1010-PL-1167
Civil plenary. Affirms jury verdict awarding Bertha McKinster $643,200 in damages on her suit for conversion, securities fraud, racketeering, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and negligence.

Willie Andrew Alsanders v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1104-CR-136
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony operating a motor vehicle after lifetime suspension of driving privileges.

Lewis R. Ross, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A04-1103-CR-172
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

D.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1103-JV-166
Juvenile. Affirms true finding that D.B. committed what would be Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult.

Joseph D. Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1105-CR-204
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony child molesting.

Michael K. Boone v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1104-CR-187
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Gerald D. James v. State of Indiana (NFP)
88A05-1104-CR-250
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Justin B. Troxell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1104-CR-352
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation after Troxell was charged with attempted rape and conspiracy to commit rape.

Elvis A. Hall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1106-CR-587
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony theft.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT