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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT