ILNews

Opinions Oct. 11, 2012

October 11, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Edward Jeroski, doing business as USA Cleaning Service and Building Maintenance v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission and U.S. Secretary of Labor
11-3687
Agency review. Denies USA Cleaning’s petition to review the order of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, which affirmed the denial of an application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The meaning of “prevailing party” under the act does not apply to USA Cleaning, which was the subject of an order by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration that was later dropped.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

William A. Boyd and Janice Ann Boyd v. State of Indiana
28A01-1203-PL-108
Civil plenary. Affirms the state’s taking of the Boyds’ property for use in constructing Interstate-69 in southwest Indiana. None of the Boyds’ claims are reviewable in eminent domain proceedings.

David E. Lyons v. State of Indiana
76A03-1112-CR-582
Criminal. Affirms convictions of five counts of Class A felony child molesting. The requirements of Evidence Rule 702 were satisfied and the admission of Dr. Judith Williams’ testimony did not constitute error or a fundamental error.

Andrew Machi v. State of Indiana (NFP)
36A04-1203-CR-166
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Daniel Crabtree v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1203-CR-131
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed after Crabtree’s probation for Class C felony child molesting was revoked.

Matthew Bryant v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1110-CR-496
Criminal. Reduces Bryant’s conviction of Class C felony battery to a Class B misdemeanor and remands for resentencing, which will have no effect on his aggregate 93-year sentence. Affirms remaining convictions of Class A felony burglary, two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, and two counts of Class C felony intimidation.

Shellie P. App v. William App, Jr. (NFP)
67A01-1203-DR-99
Domestic relation. Finds trial court erred by entering a post-secondary educational expense order in the absence of a worksheet or its own findings and conclusions and by failing to specify which parent should claim the child as a dependent for tax purposes. Affirms in all other respects. Remands with instructions.

John Tompkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1111-CR-690
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony burglary and status as a habitual offender.
 

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