Indiana Court of Appeals
Indiana Board of Pharmacy v. Paul J. Elmer
20A-PL-2200
Civil plenary. Affirms the Marion Superior Court’s order reversing the decision of the Indiana Board of Pharmacy to revoke Paul J. Elmer’s pharmacist’s license. Finds the board does not have statutory authority to revoke an expired license. Remands for further proceedings.
Despite the pro se defendant claiming he had never heard the word “bailment,” the Indiana Court of Appeals found he became the bailee when he threatened to shoot his friend and pseudo-tenant in a dispute that started with the purchase of a brand new motorcycle.
Foreseeing the potential for corrupt pharmacists to avoid discipline by letting their licenses expire, the Indiana Board of Pharmacy argued it had the authority to revoke expired licenses, but the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled the board does not have the power under state statute to pull a lapsed license.
A Gary woman whose prison sentence was thrown out on appeal in a 2018 apartment fire that killed two of her children will be resentenced this month to no more than 42 years in prison.
Indiana Court of Appeals Jesse E. Atwood v. State of Indiana 20A-CR-02391 Criminal. Affirms Jesse Atwood’s conviction for Level 5 felony corrupt business influence and his aggregate 11-year sentence with one year suspended. Finds sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Judge Nancy Vaidik dissents, arguing the Indiana RICO statute “should not be construed to include […]
The following 7th Circuit opinions were posted after IL deadline on Thursday. Justin Castelino v. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 19-1905 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. Senior Judge William T. Lawrence. Civil. Affirms the Indiana Southern District Court’s entry of summary judgment for Rose-Hulman Institute […]
Indiana Supreme Court
James Combs v. State of Indiana
20S-CR-616
Criminal. Affirms the trial court’s judgment that denied James Combs’ motion to suppress after concluding that that police officers had probable cause to believe his van was connected to criminal activity and therefore could be seized without a warrant. Finds that the seizure and search of Combs’ van fell under recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Justice Rush and Justice David concur. Justice Slaughter concurs in result. Justice Goff dissents.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Edward Koziski v. State of Indiana
20A-CR-1889
Criminal. Affirms and reverses in part Edward Koziski’s convictions of two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting and one count each of Level 5 felony criminal confinement and Level 5 felony kidnapping. Finds the test in Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227 (Ind. 2020) applies. Also finds that under Wadle, Koziski’s Level 1 felony convictions do not violate double jeopardy. Finally, finds Koziski’s Level 5 felony convictions do violate double jeopardy under Wadle, because confinement is an included offense of kidnapping. Remands with instructions to vacate Koziski’s conviction and sentence for Level 5 felony criminal confinement.
Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re: the Adoption of K.T.; J.J. and C.T. v. G.C. and C.B.
20A-AD-2102
Adoption. Affirms the order finding that mother C.T. and father J.J.’s consent to the adoption of their minor child, K.T., was not necessary. Finds the Fulton Circuit Court did not err as a matter of law when it considered whether C.T. and J.J.’s consents to the adoption were required despite an ongoing CHINS proceeding with K.T. Also finds the record supports the trial court’s findings that J.J.’s consent to the adoption is not required, and the court’s findings support its judgment dispensing with J.J.’s consent.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Sandra A. King and Danielle D. Benge v. Dan Dejanovic and Alice Dejanovic
20A-PL-2366
Civil plenary. Affirms the order for Sandra A. King and Danielle D. Benge to remove or reduce the size of their pole barn within 90 days. Finds that even though there are other violations of the covenants in the subdivision, they are on the “other” side of the subdivision and “not practically within sigh” of the property owned by Dan and Alice Dejanovic. Also finds the Dejanovics’ failure to object to the other violations does not deprive them of the right to enforce the covenant for a violation right next door that directly interferes with the use and enjoyment of their property.
The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
David Jones v. Rodney Cummings, et al.
20-1898
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Senior Judge Sarah Evans Barker. Civil. Affirms the dismissal of David Jones’ complaint alleging Madison County prosecutors maliciously prosecuted him in violation of his due process rights. Finds that longstanding principles of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and prosecutorial immunity block him at the threshold.
Richard Jefferson Deibel v. Larry Hoeg, Aaron Hoeg, and Roger Steffen
20-3378
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Chief Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Civil. Affirms the dismissal of Richard Jefferson Deibel’s suit contending his settlement with Larry Hoeg and Roger Steffen allowed him to retain his shares in his former company Hy-Pro Corp. Finds Deibel’s suit was untimely and is not saved by a continuing wrong.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals May 10 Civil Plenary – Defamation/Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Katherine Black v. Cherie Wrigley and Pamela Kerr 20-2656 A law school professor suing for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress could not convince the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that the jury was wrong to reject her claims. […]
To recover or oppose a costs award, a working knowledge is important of the interplay among federal statutes, federal rules, local rules and caselaw.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday affirmed the dismissal of a convicted killer’s habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, agreeing that his attorney’s alleged errors did not prejudice him.
A police officer was justified in conducting a search of Christian Jamar Triblet after seeing a bulge on the right side of his pants that was larger than a mobile phone, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday, affirming a lower court ruling denying Triblet’s motion to suppress evidence.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jay R. Thompson v. Frank Vanihel
20-2571
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. Judge James R. Sweeney II.
Civil. Affirms the dismissal of Jay Thompson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Finds counsel’s alleged legal errors did not prejudice Thompson.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeromy D. Hurd v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A-CR-1671
Criminal. Reverses Jeromy D. Hurd’s conviction for theft but affirms his convictions for dealing in methamphetamine and dealing in marijuana. Finds the state provided insufficient evidence to support Hurd’s conviction of theft but provided sufficient evidence that Hurd possessed meth and marijuana. Also finds that any error in the admission of messages received by Hurd’s phone was harmless. Remands.
Indiana Court of Appeals
James L. Mosley v. State of Indiana
20A-CR-02094
Criminal. Reverses the Ripley Circuit Court’s revocation of three years of James L. Mosley’s probation for his conviction of fraud, as well as its order that he spend those years in prison. Finds a no-contact order cannot be issued to protect a dead person and that Mosley’s probation cannot be revoked based on violation of that void order.
No-contact orders cannot be issued to protect dead people, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in a Friday reversal for a man who sent an apology letter to a deceased person he previously committed fraud against.