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

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT