ILNews

Opinions Oct. 27, 2010

October 27, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
James L. Parkey v. Jason E. Sample
09-3966
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge William C. Lee
Civil. Affirms District Court’s grant of Indiana State Trooper Jason Sample’s motion for summary judgment, which found James Parkey, who sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, had not brought forth any evidence to demonstrate a lack of probable cause. Parkey claimed Sample had violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment by searching his home and seizing his property without probable cause. Suspecting Parkey had a marijuana grow operation, Sample did two trash pulls near Parkey’s residence where Sample found marijuana cigarettes and stems from marijuana plants, evidence he presented to a Lake County Superior magistrate, who issued a search warrant for Parkey’s home.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Maurice Porter v. State of Indiana
20A03-0912-CR-570
Criminal. Affirms one conviction of nonsupport of a dependent child as a Class C felony, and reduced the second conviction of nonsupport of a dependent child to a Class D felony for which the sentence shall be a term of 1.5 years, to be served consecutive to the sentence for the Class C felony. Remands with instructions to enter judgment of conviction and a sentencing order in conformance with this opinion.

Kent Hizer and Elizabeth Hizer v. James Holt and Rebecca Holt
71A03-1002-PL-127
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Holts on the Hizers’ claims for fraud and breach of contract arising from the Hizers’ purchase of the Holts’ home. Concludes that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the Holts made fraudulent misrepresentations on the Sales Disclosure Form required by statute.

LaPorte Community School Corporation v. Maria Rosales
46A04-1001-CT-4
Civil. Concludes trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting deposition testimony from an expert regarding school safety and school emergency plans. Also finds the trial court properly denied the school’s motion for judgment on the evidence as to negligence and properly granted Rosales’s motion for judgment on the evidence as to contributory negligence. However, also concludes the jury was not properly instructed regarding negligence, and the erroneous instruction was a reversible error, and therefore the Court of Appeals remands.

Joel Moses v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-268
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Douglas L. Blair v. State of Indiana (NFP)
81A01-1003-CR-201
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for operating a vehicle after lifetime suspension and speeding.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of D.M.B.; R.M.W. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
20A03-1004-JT-181
Juvenile. Affirms termination of R.M.W.’s parental rights to her son, D.B.

Floyd E. Whitlock v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-657
Criminal. Finding Whitlock’s motion is not ripe for adjudication because he is still serving his sentence, affirms trial court’s order that Whitlock may have to register for the Indiana Sex Offender Registry as a condition of parole.

James J. Pierce, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1002-CR-276
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Ronald Trent v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A03-1003-CR-180
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and 35-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter, a Class A felony, following a guilty plea.

David M. Holmquist v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1001-IF-2
Criminal. Affirms bench judgment for speeding, a Class C infraction.

Angel Rivera v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1002-CR-118
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor patronizing a prostitute.

Gene Payton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1003-CR-187
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life, a Class C felony.

Kwiatkowski Land Management LLC v. Torrenga Engineering Inc., et al. (NFP)
45A04-1001-MF-18
Civil. Concludes trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment in favor of Torrenga Engineering and in granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of third-party plaintiffs Richard and Joan Handtke. Finds the agreed judgment is clearly erroneous to the extent that it relates to these erroneous orders. However, the Court of Appeals affirms the agreed judgment to the extent that it relates to the lien against the Chesterfield Estates Property held by third-party plaintiff K & S Engineering.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT