ILNews

Opinions Oct. 20, 2010

October 20, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
J.B. v. E.B.
34A04-1002-DR-110
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court decision to exclude son’s counseling records at a custody modification hearing. The instant case is a proceeding within the purview of Indiana Code Section 31-32-11-1 and the counselor/client privilege does not apply. Remands for further proceedings.  

Charles R. Wyatt, et al. v. Thomas E. Wheeler, et al.
49A02-1006-PL-636
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Wyatt’s petition for review of final agency action by the Indiana Election Commission and petition for preliminary injunctive and declarative relief. Affirms denial of Ellspermann’s request for attorney’s fees. The irregularity in Ellspermann’s declaration and any misconstruction of Indiana Code Section 3-8-2-7 by the IEC or the Marion Superior Court cannot justify reversal of the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction because it would contradict the will of the electorate and disenfranchise voters.

Keesha Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1002-CR-98
Criminal. Reverses conviction of possession of marijuana as a Class D felony.

Howard Smallwood v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1001-PC-1
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Mark A. Rode v. State of Indiana (NFP)
91A04-1005-CR-263
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Bruce Fivecoat v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1003-CR-132
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class B felony armed robbery and one count of Class B felony criminal confinement.

Adoption of K.M.A.; R.R. v. Adoptive Parents (NFP)
29A02-1003-AD-499
Adoption. Affirms adoption order granted in favor of the adoptive parents.

Antrooine A. Manning v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1002-CR-65
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B felony robbery, Class D felony resisting law enforcement, and adjudication as a habitual offender.

East Valparaiso LLC v. Physicians for Women, et al. (NFP)
64A05-1004-PL-222
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of East Valparaiso’s request for injunctive relief in a dispute over a lease agreement. Remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion regarding the parties’ remaining claims and counterclaims.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.A. and D.R.; C.A. and J.H. v. IDCS (NFP)
48A02-1003-JT-317
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Marlet D. Turpin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-285
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony and Class C felony child molesting.

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