ILNews

Opinions Oct. 11, 2011

October 11, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Roger Loughry, also known as Mayorroger
10-2967
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence
Criminal. Reverses District Court’s decision to allow admission as evidence “hard core” pornography without examining it or without explaining its reasoning under Rule 403. Holds that the material was highly inflammatory and held only minimal probative value, but created extreme prejudice against Loughry. Remands to the District Court for proceedings consistent with opinion.

Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of C.G., Minor Child and Her Mother, Z.G. v. Marion County Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc.
49S04-1101-JT-46
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s termination of mother’s parental rights, holding that while the Marion County Department of Child Services made several errors, none rose to the level of violating the mother’s due process rights or warranting a reversal.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Julius T. Anderson v. Richard M.Ivy
18A04-1107-MI-357
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s decision that Ivy was entitled to a special election, holding that no evidence exists to suggest Anderson’s misconduct affected any votes.

Jeffrey Havvard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1103-CR-109
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

Daniel W. Oliver v. State of Indiana (NFP)
07A04-1012-CR-768
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class D felony theft.  

Yusuf Fields v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1012-CR-815
Criminal. Affirms convictions for Class A felony attempted murder and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Dawon Strong v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1104-CR-143
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Justin Lashaway v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1011-CR-773
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class A felony conspiracy to commit child molesting.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of G.H., T.H., and B.H.; I.H. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
66A01-1102-JT-40
Juvenile. Affirms termination of father’s parental rights.

Randy S. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1104-PC-196
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Philip D. Krantz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1104-CR-146
Criminal. Affirms sentence for four Class D felonies resulting from a plea agreement.

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT