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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT