ILNews

Opinions Jan. 9, 2013

January 9, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Michael D. Weir
11-3321
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. All the judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and no judge in regular active service asked for a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition is therefore denied. Weir complained that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when a police officer seized $6,655 from him during a traffic stop.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jeffrey A. Hanauer v. Colleen T. Hanauer
79A04-1205-PO-271
Protective order. Affirms issuance of a protective order against Jeffrey Hanauer as there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s issuance of the protective order after finding the wife is a victim of domestic violence.

Aaron Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1206-CR-270
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony battery.

Marty L. Armes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A01-1207-CR-299
Criminal. Affirms probation conditions are not ambiguous, overbroad, unconstitutionally vague or unreasonable, and the trial court’s sentence for two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor is not inappropriate.

Brian E. Green v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A04-1203-CR-141
Criminal. Affirms interlocutory order denying motion to suppress evidence seized after officers stopped the vehicle in which Green was a passenger.
 
Jack Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1205-CR-384
Criminal. Affirms conviction and sentence for Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Troy Crim v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1204-CR-276
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class C misdemeanor.

Gerald Mickens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1112-PC-1162
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Juan C. Duarte-Lopez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1205-PC-238
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT