ILNews

Opinions Oct. 15, 2010

October 15, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Southlake Community Mental Health Center, Inc., et al. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Crown Point, Indiana, et al.
45A03-1002-MI-81
Miscellaneous. Reverses determination that the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Crown Point correctly concluded that Southlake and Watertower South’s proposed use of a certain parcel was inappropriate for the parcel’s zoning classification. The original appeal of the Crown Point Plan Commission’s decision by Feather Rock Professional Office Park was untimely. Remands with instructions to grant Southlake and Watertower’s certiorari petition.

Ritzert Co., Inc., et al. v. United Fidelity Bank, Tyme Properties, LLC, et al.
82A04-1001-PL-35
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for United Fidelity Bank on the contractors’ claim for unjust enrichment. United, which made no request, express or implied, to the contractors for their services did not otherwise owe a duty to the contractors.  

Travis Cordell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1005-CR-601
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Travis D. Rutherford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1005-PC-278
Criminal. Affirms guilty plea to, conviction of, and sentence for Class D felony voyeurism.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of E.Y., et al.; C.Y. v. Montgomery County D.C.S. (NFP)
54A01-1005-JT-229
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Mental Health Proceedings of D.J. (NFP)
29A04-1003-MH-205
Mental health. Affirms order involuntarily committing D.J. to a mental-health facility as an inpatient.

Christopher Rudolph v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1002-CR-61
Criminal. Affirms 25-year sentence for aggravated battery, unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and carrying a handgun without a license under one cause number; and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, dealing in marijuana, and resisting law enforcement under another cause number.

Crystal G. Huesman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
73A01-1002-CR-130
Criminal. Affirms determination that Huesman violated her probation.

Dametrick M. Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1002-CR-143
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony robbery.

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