ILNews

Opinions Sept. 10, 2010

September 10, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Joseph Finch, David E. Hensley, and Peter W. Mungovan v. Bart Peterson, individually and in his official capacity, et al.
09-2676
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch.
Civil. Affirms denial of the city officials’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in a suit filed by three white officers alleging discrimination in promotions. The 1978 consent decree between the Indianapolis Police Department and the U.S. Department of Justice does not operate to confer qualified immunity on city officials who were involved in making the challenged promotions. Nothing in the decree required them to take race into consideration when making promotions.

Indiana Supreme Court
Lyn Leone, et al. v. Commissioner, BMV
49S02-0910-CV-505
Civil. Affirms denial of preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs to prevent the BMV from revoking driver’s licenses when the names from BMV and Social Security Administration records do not match. The class hasn’t shown a likelihood of success. Dissolves the preliminary injunction entered by the Indiana Court of Appeals as a stay pending appeal.
 
Indiana Court of Appeals
Charles Adam Trotter v. State of Indiana
29A02-0910-CR-974
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to suppress and the grant of the state’s motion to clarify. The trial court ruled that although the warrantless entry into the residence was unconstitutional, the suppression of the evidence wasn’t necessary based upon the doctrine of attenuation. The warrantless entry violated both federal and state constitutions. The proper remedy for the constitutional violation is the suppression of evidence. Remands for further proceedings.  

Crown Coin Meter Company, et al. v. Park P, LLC  
34A02-1002-PL-185
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Park P in its complaint to quiet title and seeking a declaratory judgment that the lease between Crown Coin and the prior owner of the apartment building is void as to Park P. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Park P had actual implied notice of Crown Coin’s outstanding rights at the time Park P purchased the property and whether Park P was a bona fide purchaser. Remands for further proceedings.

Eclipse Consulting, Inc. v. Community Bank (NFP)
29A05-0912-CV-696
Civil. Affirms grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Community Bank in Eclipse’s suit alleging breach of contract, fraud, conversion and bad faith. Remands for proceedings.

David L. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-0907-CR-299
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and 65-year sentence with five years suspended to probation for murder.

Jeanette Haggard v. Brent Boyd (NFP)
32A04-1001-DR-33
Domestic relation. Affirms granting the dependent tax exemption to Boyd. Reverses calculation of the amount of child support Boyd has overpaid since he filed his petition to modify and remands with instructions to amend its order on father’s petition to modify custody and support accordingly.

D.L.S. v. J.S. (NFP)
85A02-0910-CV-985
Civil. Affirms order granting physical custody of D.S.’s children to mother J.S.

Edna Taylor Living Trust v. Kokomo/Howard County Plan Comm. (NFP)
80A05-1004-PL-289
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the commission on the Taylor Trust’s complaint for mandate.

Chance Ross Carper v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-1002-CR-96
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT