ILNews

Opinions Sept. 6, 2011

September 6, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jeffrey William Paul v. Helen J. Marberry, et al.
10-3670
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Reverses District Court’s denial of Paul’s motion to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis on the grounds that he had three strikes and remands for further proceedings. Since most prisoners litigate their civil claims pro se, they should not be required to speculate on the grounds the judge could or even should have based the dismissal on. Classifying a strike depends on the grounds given for it.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re: The Order of Contempt Against Craig Benson, Martinsville Depot, Inc., and SBS Enterprises, Inc. v. Co-Alliance, LLP
55A04-1010-CC-646
Civil collection. Affirms order finding Benson in contempt. Any error in the verification process of the contempt motion did not affect Benson’s substantial rights. The trial court also had jurisdiction to order him to pay $75,000 to the Morgan County Clerk.  

Clarence T. Hawkins James v. State of Indiana

20A05-1101-CR-61
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony conspiracy to commit armed robbery, Class B felony burglary, and Class C felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. The charges against James were not only alleged as separate and distinct acts; the charges as alleged were proved by separate and distinct evidentiary facts. There is no reasonable possibility the jury relied on the same evidentiary facts to find him guilty of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. The trial court did not err in instructing the jury.

L.R. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1101-JV-25
Juvenile. Affirms denial of motion to vacate and set aside juvenile delinquency adjudications.

Keland L. Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)

34A02-1010-MI-1145
Miscellaneous. Reverses denial of motion to set aside default judgment and remands for the trial court to vacate the entry of default judgment and for further proceedings.

Torin Herbert v. State of Indiana (NFP)

79A02-1010-PC-1080
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Keytron W. Johnson v. Sate of Indiana (NFP)

02A04-1101-PC-45
Post conviction. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted three transfers and denied 28 for the week ending Sept. 2.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT