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
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