ILNews

Opinions Oct. 13, 2011

October 13, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
George Michael True v. State of Indiana
39A04-1102-CR-37
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. There was no serious evidentiary dispute about whether the battery was committed in the presence of the children. Instructing the jury that it could convict True of a Class A misdemeanor domestic battery instead of as a Class D felony improperly invited the jury to reach a “compromise” verdict. Remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

LeChann Davis v. State of Indiana
49A02-1103-CR-184
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting. Any abuse of discretion to allow E.S.’s mother’s testimony that E.S. told her that Davis pinched his bottom during Davis’ bench trial was harmless. There is sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Holiday Hospitality Franchising Inc. v. AMCO Insurance Company
33A01-1103-CT-104
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment for AMCO Insurance Co. in a suit for negligent hiring, retention and/or supervision. The alleged negligent acts give rise to an “occurrence” under the circumstances of the case and a genuine question of material fact remains regarding whether R.M.H. was in the hotel’s “care, custody or control.” Remands for further proceedings.

Jeffrey D. Lacher, et al. v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development and Bemis Co., Inc.
93A02-1102-EX-163
Agency appeal. Affirms denial of employees’ claims for unemployment benefits. The evidence does not support an inference that the employees were locked out of work; it supports the conclusion that an impasse had been reached on the issue of the temporary employee clause.

William Anderson v. Alicia Jones (NFP)
29A02-1104-DR-311
Domestic relation. Affirms order apportioning educational expenses for the couple’s eldest daughter and uninsured medical expenses for the couple’s youngest child.

Stacy A. Jenkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A01-1102-CR-050
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Jenkins serve the balance of his sentence in the Department of Correction.

Jamar Alston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-PC-307
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In Re: The Marriage of William Scott Mitchell v. Crystal Hope Bailey (NFP)
88A01-1102-DR-72
Domestic relation. Affirms distribution of property and remands for clarification.

Associated Estates Realty Corporation v. Angela Mason (NFP)
49A02-1105-CT-426
Civil tort. Reverses denial of Associated Estates Realty Corp.’s motion for relief from a default judgment and remands for further proceedings.

D.L. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-JV-109
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a delinquent juvenile for committing what would be burglary and theft if committed by an adult.

In Re: The Paternity of K.K.A. v. D.J.K. (NFP)
82A01-1103-JP-94
Juvenile. Reverses grant of petition for name change filed by father D.J.K. regarding child K.K.A.

Philip Walker, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1101-CR-112
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony battery and Class D felony cocaine possession.

Metro Health Professionals Inc. v. Carmel Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Inc., d/b/a Champion Chrysler Jeep Dodge (NFP)
06A01-1105-CT-214
Civil tort. Affirms order awarding Metro Health Professionals $3,500 in attorney fees instead of the $37,737.50 that it requested.

Bruce A. White, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1101-CR-28
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and 65-year sentence for murder.

Cindi M. Hrovat v. Thomas W. Kirchner (NFP)
84A01-1102-DR-31
Domestic relation. Affirms order denying Hrovat’s verified notice of intent to relocate.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT