ILNews

Opinions Oct. 7, 2011

October 7, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals had posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

James Fernbach v. State of Indiana
69A01-1103-CR-151
Criminal. Affirms 60-year sentence for two counts of Class A felony attempted murder, holding that the jury’s rejection of Fernbach’s insanity defense was not erroneous.

Joseph A. Taylor v. Alan P. Finnan
48A02-1105-MI-547
Miscellaneous. Reverses trial court’s dismissal of Taylor’s writ of habeas corpus. Affirms trial court’s finding that Taylor’s claim should have proceeded as a petition for post-conviction relief, but that the court should have transferred the case to Floyd County – where Taylor had been convicted and sentenced – rather than dismiss it. Remands to transfer the case to Floyd County.

Lisa A. Davis v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and VOCA of Indiana LLC
93A02-1101-EX-14
Agency appeal. Affirms decision of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development Review Board, which affirmed a decision by an administrative law judge determining Davis had been terminated for cause and therefore was ineligible for unemployment benefits. Holds that Davis had failed to provide good cause for missing a hearing and that her employer provided substantial evidence that Davis was terminated for just cause, including theft.

Kelley Seibert d/b/a Seibert's Kennel v. Rick Bryant (NFP)
48A04-1011-SC-750
Small claim. Reverses small claims court’s judgment in favor of Bryant, holding that the trial court erred in ignoring a provision in the contract between Bryant and Seibert. Remands with orders to enter judgment in favor of Seibert.

Jerramy Moore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1104-CR-294
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Bane Elliott v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1008-CR-566
Criminal. Affirms convictions of four counts of child molesting, but remands to the court to revise Elliott’s 40-year sentence to 35 years, holding that Elliott had met his burden of establishing that his sentence was inappropriate.

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