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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT