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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT