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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT