ILNews

Opinions Nov. 19, 2010

November 19, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Florence R. Lacy-McKinney v. Taylor Bean and Whitaker Mortgage Corp.
71A03-0912-CV-587
Civil. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. on its action to foreclose on Lacy-McKinney’s mortgage that was insured by the Federal Housing Administration. Views the affirmative defense of noncompliance with HUD regulations as the failure of the mortgagee to satisfy a HUD-imposed condition precedent to foreclosure. To hold otherwise would circumvent the public policy of HUD. Remands for further proceedings.

Darren Witt v. State of Indiana
45A05-1005-PC-319
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief, in which Witt challenged his sentence of life without parole imposed after pleading guilty to murder. Witt can’t prevail upon his attempt to present a free-standing claim of sentencing error and didn’t establish he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

David A. Lanham v. State of Indiana
60A01-1003-CR-114
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class A infraction possession of paraphernalia. The trial court acted within its discretion in admitting the marijuana and drug paraphernalia found in Lanham’s residence.

Earl Budd v. State of Indiana
31A01-0910-PC-504
Post conviction. Grants rehearing to clarify that only sex offenders who are committed to the Department of Correction after committing new sex crimes while required to register as sex or violent offenders are no longer eligible to earn educational credit time. Affirms original opinion in all other respects.

Jeffery S. Curtis v. State of Indiana
20A03-1002-CR-110
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated. Rejects Curtis’ invitation to construe I.C. Section 9-30-5-2 such as to require separate proof of impairment of action, and impairment of thought, and loss of control of faculties because such a construction would fly in the face of clearly contrary legislative intent. Impairment is established by proof of certain behaviors and traits evincing impairment, irrespective of whether that evidence established particularized impairment of action, thought, and loss of control of faculties.

Brian Keith Thompson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1003-CR-268
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Joseph Hackler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1004-CR-417
Criminal. Affirms order revoking placement in community corrections.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT