ILNews

Opinions Oct. 14, 2011

October 14, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Cedric Tharpe v. State of Indiana
49A04-1101-CR-24
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder. Tharpe didn’t show the judge who presided over his case was biased or prejudiced, nor did he demonstrate his trial was unfair. The trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying his motion for continuance and there is sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

Nathan Allyn Richardson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1012-CR-757
Criminal. Affirms imposition of three-year executed sentence following revocation of probation.

Amber Easton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1103-CR-214
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Matthew Spoonemore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1102-CR-64
Criminal. Affirms order that Spoonemore pay Indiana Ticket Company $29,700 in restitution. Remands for the trial court to determine whether it wishes to exercise its discretion and enter judgment as a Class A misdemeanor instead of a Class D felony for theft.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.Y., and D.H. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs. and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A04-1102-JT-107
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of H.G.; M.G. and D.G. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Svcs. (NFP)
82A04-1011-JT-730
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

T.C. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1102-JV-231
Juvenile. Affirms finding of delinquency.

Eugene M. Gray Trust, A-1 Vacuum, Northwest Optical, and Marion County, Indiana v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-PL-1329
Civil plenary. Affirms decision regarding the amount of interest due to the trust as part of an eminent domain action.

Gordon Northrup, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1103-PC-272
Post conviction. Affirms post-conviction court’s denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brian Loveall v. Susan (Loveall) Kelly (NFP)
23A01-1102-DR-47
Domestic relation. Affirms grant of mother’s petition for modification of child support.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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