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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT