ILNews

Opinions Sept. 5, 2012

September 5, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Victor George v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana Inc.
11-3291
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Civil. Vacates grant of Junior Achievement’s motion for summary judgment on the Employment Retirement Income Security Act claim and dismissal of George’s state-law claims without prejudice. The District Court must decide whether there is some other ground on which the case may be resolved short of trial or whether a trial on causation is necessary.  

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Cody B. Honeycutt v. State of Indiana
92A04-1203-CR-149
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to dismiss charges on grounds that they were barred by the Successive Prosecution Statute. Because the four charges were supported by probable cause and based on a series of acts so connected that they constituted parts of a single scheme or plan, they should have been charged in a single prosecution.

Napoleon Gracia, Sr. v. State of Indiana
34A04-1112-CR-667
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony disarming of a law enforcement officer, Class A misdemeanor battery, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. While the filing of charges in Howard Superior Court I was an error, Gracia did not object to the filing and was unable to show fundamental error. He is also not entitled to the jury instruction on excessive use of force by police and his sentence is appropriate.

William LaShun Caples v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1202-CR-69
Criminal. Affirms denial of Caples’ motion to set aside jury verdict convicting him of three counts of Class A felony child molesting.

Charles Blakemore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1201-CR-77
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Najee S. Blackman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1203-CR-335
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Estate of Lewis G. Mark, Deceased, and Evelyn J. Mark v. 1st Source Bank (NFP)
71A03-1203-MF-143
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment for 1st Source as to its foreclosure complaint.

In the Matter of Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.H., C.H., & A.H.; and D.M. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
54A05-1202-JT-56
Juvenile termination of rights. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: Z.B., G.B., K.B., & S.B.; and T.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
64A03-1201-JT-31
Juvenile termination of rights. Affirms termination of parental rights.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT