ILNews

Opinions Oct. 12, 2010

October 12, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America and State of New York, et al. v. Cinergy Corp., et al.
No. 1:99-CV-1693
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney.
Civil. Reverses District Court ruling in the government’s favor regarding modifications involving sulphur dioxide emissions because Cinergy met the standard that was authorized by a state plan the Environmental Protection Agency approved. Finds the District Court should not have admitted evidence by the EPA’s expert witnesses. Rules that without expert testimony to support an estimate of actual emissions caused by the modifications, the government cannot prevail with respect to the charge of nitrogen oxide pollution. Dismisses cross-appeal.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dwight Murdock v. Estate of Sharron K. Murdock
45A03-0912-CV-585
Civil. Reverses enforcement of marital property settlement document, including its provision that the issue of abandonment is moot, and remands for further proceedings addressing the issue of whether Dwight forfeited the right to inherit from Sharron’s estate after she died during the dissolution process.

Deere & Co. v. Travis Hostetler & New Holland Rochester
25A05-1006-CC-367
Civil collection. Reverses trial court order giving New Holland prejudgment possession of farm equipment and remands with instructions to enter an order granting Deere prejudgment possession of the equipment in question. Rules New Holland was not a bona fide purchaser because it had actual notice of Deere’s liens.

In Re the Guardianship of A.M.N.; M.N. and E.N. v. B.C. (NFP)
39A01-1001-GU-73
Guardianship. Affirms trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the grandparents’ guardianship in favor of mother.

Kenneth Pairsh v. Annette Pairsh (NFP)
18A02-1002-DR-151
Domestic relation. Affirms trial court’s denial of Kenneth Pairsh’s request for spousal maintenance and its distribution of marital property

Emmanuel T. Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1003-CR-199
Criminal. Affirms 15-year sentence for Class B felony aggravated battery.

Anthony Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1002-CR-352
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony auto theft.

Luther J. Gant v. State of Indiana (NFP)

02A03-1004-CR-208
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery and 15-year sentence.

Ronnie Drane v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-0912-PC-600
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief.

Michelle Woods v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1002-CR-119
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor battery on a law enforcement officer, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT