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
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