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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT