ILNews

Opinions Sept. 28, 2011

September 28, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Indiana Supreme Court
Desmond Turner v. State of Indiana
49S00-0912-CR-565
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder, criminal confinement, robbery and burglary, and the sentence of life in prison without parole for the murder convictions, plus a term of years for the other convictions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting firearms and tool mark examiner Michael Putzek’s testimony, and the admission of challenged testimony did not violate Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b). The trial court erred in admitting testimony on a statement made by Turner’s mother, but that does not require reversal.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of T.N., Alleged to be CHINS; G.N. v. IDCS, and Child Advocates, Inc.
49A05-1101-JC-15
Juvenile. Reverses determination that T.N. is a child in need of services. The trial court violated father G.N.’s right to due process. Remands for further proceedings.

M Jewell, LLC v. Max M. Powell and Marion School Employees Federal Credit Union
27A02-1101-MI-47
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of M Jewell LLC’s petition for an order directing the auditor of Grant County to issue a tax deed. The trial court determined that Max Powell was prejudicially misled by the incomplete information given to him by the treasurer’s office, and that determination supports the piercing of the statutory rules to prevent injustice.

In Re: Larry L. Thompson Revocable Trust; Deanna Thompson Stull v. Larry L. Thompson Revocable Trust, Derek Thompson, and Vicki Thompson Craver
54A01-1011-TR-592
Trust. Affirms judgment in favor of Larry L. Thompson Revocable Trust, Derek Thompson and Vicki Thompson Craver on Deanna Thompson Stull’s motion to correct errors and motion to amend petition in equity to conform to evidence. The trial court did not err by barring Deanna from raising the issues of her equitable claim that were implicitly decided in a prior appeal. Denies the appellees’ request for appellate attorney fees.

K.S. v. B.W.
22A05-1102-DR-79
Domestic relation. Reverses order granting ex-boyfriend B.W. visitation with K.S.’s daughter. Affirms denial of K.S.’s request for attorney fees. The trial court’s decision to grant B.W. visitation as a de facto parent was contrary to law. B.W. is not the biological father.

Robert Endris v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Fellon-McCord Associates (NFP)
9302-1101-EX-48
Agency appeal. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

Brett Zagorac v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A03-1011-CR-589
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor battery.

Telisa Arnold v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-CR-20
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

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. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

ADVERTISEMENT