ILNews

Opinions Nov. 18, 2011

November 18, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. v. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
11-2438
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL No. 1700
Denies petition for the extraordinary writ of mandamus, holding that the petitioner failed to show that it has a clear and indisputable right to issuance of the writ.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

David Marks and Karen Marks v. Northern Indiana Public Service Company
45A05-1011-CT-675
Civil tort. On petition for rehearing, affirms original decision in all respects, holding that the semi-trailer from which David Marks fell was owned by a subcontractor of a general contractor, and therefore Northern Indiana Public Service Co. is not liable for the accident.

Alesha Houston and Donna Gruzinsky v. State of Indiana
49A02-1101-CR-77
Criminal. Affirms Houston’s and Gruzinsky’s convictions of Class B misdemeanor failure to ensure school attendance, holding that the attendance officer at the schools were legally required to prepare and file referral records as part of the proceedings in Gruzinsky’s case, and that regardless of whether Houston’s lawyer had objected to the admission of hearsay documents, the objection would not have been sustained.

Jose J. Martinez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1101-PC-139
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Becky Melton v. Michael Melton (NFP)
71A03-1105-DR-217
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s order denying in part and granting in part Becky Melton’s motion to correct error, holding the court did not abuse its discretion in its division of property.

Tracy D. Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1102-CR-75
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence of 20 years for Class B felony armed robbery, Class D felony pointing a firearm and associated charges.

Becky Jayne Wells v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A04-1012-CR-798
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class C felony possession of methamphetamine.

Michael Ratliff v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1104-CR-127
Criminal. Affirms executed sentence for Class C felony possession of a controlled substance.

Patricia Abram v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1103-CR-122
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony theft.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Some are above the law in Indiana. Some lined up with Lodges have controlled power in the state since the 1920s when the Klan ruled Indiana. Consider the comments at this post and note the international h.q. in Indianapolis. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/human-trafficking-rising-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/42468. Brave journalists need to take this child torturing, above the law and antimarriage cult on just like The Globe courageously took on Cardinal Law. Are there any brave Hoosier journalists?

  2. I am nearing 66 years old..... I have no interest in contacting anyone. All I need to have is a nationality....a REAL Birthday...... the place U was born...... my soul will never be at peace. I have lived my life without identity.... if anyone can help me please contact me.

  3. This is the dissent discussed in the comment below. See comments on that story for an amazing discussion of likely judicial corruption of some kind, the rejection of the rule of law at the very least. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774#comment

  4. That means much to me, thank you. My own communion, to which I came in my 30's from a protestant evangelical background, refuses to so affirm me, the Bishop's courtiers all saying, when it matters, that they defer to the state, and trust that the state would not be wrong as to me. (LIttle did I know that is the most common modernist catholic position on the state -- at least when the state acts consistent with the philosophy of the democrat party). I asked my RCC pastor to stand with me before the Examiners after they demanded that I disavow God's law on the record .... he refused, saying the Bishop would not allow it. I filed all of my file in the open in federal court so the Bishop's men could see what had been done ... they refused to look. (But the 7th Cir and federal judge Theresa Springmann gave me the honor of admission after so reading, even though ISC had denied me, rendering me a very rare bird). Such affirmation from a fellow believer as you have done here has been rare for me, and that dearth of solidarity, and the economic pain visited upon my wife and five children, have been the hardest part of the struggle. They did indeed banish me, for life, and so, in substance did the the Diocese, which treated me like a pariah, but thanks to this ezine ... and this is simply amazing to me .... because of this ezine I am not silenced. This ezine allowing us to speak to the corruption that the former chief "justice" left behind, yet embedded in his systems when he retired ... the openness to discuss that corruption (like that revealed in the recent whistleblowing dissent by courageous Justice David and fresh breath of air Chief Justice Rush,) is a great example of the First Amendment at work. I will not be silenced as long as this tree falling in the wood can be heard. The Hoosier Judiciary has deep seated problems, generational corruption, ideological corruption. Many cases demonstrate this. It must be spotlighted. The corrupted system has no hold on me now, none. I have survived their best shots. It is now my time to not be silent. To the Glory of God, and for the good of man's law. (It almost always works that way as to the true law, as I explained the bar examiners -- who refused to follow even their own statutory law and violated core organic law when banishing me for life -- actually revealing themselves to be lawless.)

  5. to answer your questions, you would still be practicing law and its very sad because we need lawyers like you to stand up for the little guy who have no voice. You probably were a threat to them and they didnt know how to handle the truth and did not want anyone to "rock the boat" so instead of allowing you to keep praticing they banished you, silenced you , the cowards that they are.

ADVERTISEMENT