ILNews

Opinions Nov. 21, 2011

November 21, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


7th Circuit Court of Appeals had issued no opinions as of IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had issued no opinions as of IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Jim Norris v. Personal Finance
27A04-1104-SC-183
Small claim. Reverses trial court’s decision denying Norris relief, holding that the trial court erred in concluding that under Trial Rule 4.16, Norris’ parents – when served a notice of claim against Norris – had a duty to inform the court that Norris did not live with them.

Adron Herschel Tancil v. State of Indiana
45A03-1101-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion for a new trial, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Cites a previous Indiana Supreme Court decision stating that intent to kill can be inferred from the nature of the attack, including the duration, brutality and relative strengths of the defendant and victim.

Janice L. Davis v. Shelter Insurance Companies, State Farm Insurance Companies, and Jennifer L. Culver
02A05-1105-CT-256
Civil tort. Affirms trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Culver and State Farm Insurance Companies, holding no genuine issue of material fact exists and that Davis failed to prove that her claim of equitable estoppel applies.

Myron L. Johnson v. State of Indiana
71A04-1103-CR-194
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation, holding that any failure by Michigan and Indiana to strictly comply with the Interstate Compact with respect to a probable cause hearing for Johnson before his transfer back to Indiana did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to revoke his probation, either as to subject matter or personal jurisdiction.

George B. Warren v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1004-CR-286
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for two counts of Class B felony robbery.

Dewayne L. Campbell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1102-CR-143
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class B felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine and associated charges.

Bruce King v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1105-CR-214
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s revocation of probation and order that King serve previously suspended sentence.

Leland K. Roberts v. Hart & Sons Realty, LLC (NFP)
33A01-1103-PL-116
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s judgment quieting title to a tract of land in favor of Hart & Sons Realty.

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