ILNews

Opinions Oct. 4, 2012

October 4, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Angelina Povey v. City of Jeffersonville, Indiana
11-1896
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for the city on Povey’s claim that her termination of employment by the city animal shelter violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and on her retaliation claim. Povey failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that she was disabled under the ADA and is not protected by its provisions.

Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

In the Matter of Minor Children Alleged to be in Need of Services, T.G., A.G., and D.G., Minor Children; L.E., Mother v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
53A01-1203-JC-130
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms finding children are children in need of services.  

L.D.P. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1203-JV-161
Juvenile. Affirms order L.D.P. pay restitution secondary to her adjudication as a delinquent child.

Ryan K. Powell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
19A01-1205-CR-195
Criminal. Affirms revocation of placement in community corrections and revocation of probation.

Ronald A. Bohannon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A01-1203-CR-115
Criminal. Affirms post-conviction court did not err in denying claim that Bohannon’s sentence violated prohibitions against double jeopardy, that the state violated I.C. 35-34-1-5(e), and in finding that Bohannon received effective assistance of counsel. Remands to correct his sentence in accordance with the post-conviction court’s determination that his original sentence for Count III was impermissibly enhanced twice.

D.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1201-PC-18
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brandon A. Henson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A01-1201-CR-013
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder.

David Allen Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A05-1201-CR-16
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder.

Justine Miller v. Anonymous Healthcare Organization, DOE 1, DOE 2, DOE 3, DOE 4, and DOE 5 (NFP)
49A02-1201-CT-117
Civil tort. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of the health care organization on Miller’s claims of slander and infliction of emotional distress.

Melissa Ramos Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1203-CR-138
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felonies aggravated battery and neglect of a dependent.

Thomas Carr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1202-CR-67
Criminal. Affirms sentence for two counts of Class B felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon and two counts of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

Marcel D. Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1201-CR-28
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT