ILNews

Opinions Oct. 12, 2012

October 12, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no opinions prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Jeffrey Riggs and Mark Ashmann v. Mark S. Weinberger, M.D., Mark Weinberger, M.D., P.C., Merrillville Center for Advanced Surgery, LLC, and Nose and Sinus Center, LLC
45A03-1109-CT-394
Civil tort. Reaffirms original opinion in all respects, and finds that a trial court when confronted with the facts and circumstances like those in this case, may compel an involuntary psychiatric examination in accordance with Ind. Trial Rule 35. There is no requirement that the court must do so.

Certain Westfield Southeast Area 1 Annexation Territory Landowners and Certain Westfield Southeast Area 2 Territory Landowners v. City of Westfield
29A02-1205-MI-389
Miscellaneous. Affirms judgment in favor of Westfield in finding that the city’s delayed publication of annexation ordinances did not bar annexation. The remonstrators haven’t shown a violation of their substantial rights. Affirms that the remonstrators do have standing to challenge the city’s annexation as evidenced by the certification of the remonstrance petition prior to the evidentiary hearing.

Charles Davis, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A05-1111-CR-639
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Steven Powers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
84A01-1201-CR-29
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury.

T.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A05-1203-JV-119
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent, finding T.H. committed rape and criminal deviate conduct.

Robert Decker v. Paul Whitesell, as Superintendent of the Indiana State Police, The Indiana State Police Board, and The Indiana State Police (NFP)
84A01-1112-PL-578
Civil plenary. Affirms termination of employment.

Robin McFarland v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-CR-239
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Lawrence A. Smith v. Dennis A. Williams and Giddings, Whitsitt & Williams, P.C. (NFP)
06A01-1201-CT-20
Civil tort. Affirms order granting summary judgment in favor of Williams and the law firm on Smith’s legal malpractice action.

Jwaun Poindexter v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1203-CR-213
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction, reverses conviction of Class A felony attempted robbery and remands with instructions to enter judgment of conviction for attempted robbery as a Class C felony and sentence Poindexter accordingly.
 

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