Opinions March 20, 2014

March 20, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
United States of America v. Yulia Yurevna Abair
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Jon E. DeGuilio
Criminal. Reverses conviction of violating a federal criminal statute that prohibits structuring currency transactions in order to evade federal reporting requirements for transactions involving more than $10,000 in currency. The government lacked a good-faith basis for believing that Bair lied on a tax return and financial aid forms, so the District Court erred by allowing the prosecutor to ask a series of accusatory and prejudicial questions about them under Fed. Rule of Ev. 608(b). Remands for a new trial. Judge Sykes dissents.

Thursday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Zachary Mulholland v. Marion County Election Board
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Reverses dismissal of Mulholland’s lawsuit to enjoin Marion County Election Board proceedings relating to a slating violation and to enjoin the future enforcement of I.C. 3-14-1-2(a), the anti-slating law. The election board’s investigation is too preliminary a proceeding to warrant Younger abstention, at least in the wake of Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584 (2013). Even if Younger abstention were theoretically available after Sprint, the previous final federal judgment against the defendant Election Board holding the same statute facially unconstitutional would still amount to an extraordinary circumstance making Younger abstention inappropriate.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kevin Moss v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Reverses denial of Moss’ motion to dismiss the enhancement to a Class C felony his charge of Class A misdemeanor possession of a handgun without a license due to a prior felony conviction that was later modified to a misdemeanor. Moss carried his burden of proving error because he had the prior felony reduced to a misdemeanor, so it could not support the enhancement.

Heritage Acceptance Corporation v. Chris L. Romine
Small claim. Affirms small claims court judgment in favor of Romine on Heritage Acceptance Corps.’ complaint to recover unpaid money owed on a car Romine financed. Under I.C. 26-1-2-102, the contract for payment of money is for a transaction of goods, so it is subject to the four-year statute of limitations. As such, Heritage’s complaint was not filed within that time frame.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.H. & J.H. (Minor Children), and D.T. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating father’s parental rights.

Dominique McClendon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class C felony possession of a narcotic drug while in possession of a firearm.

Michael W. Gilliland v. Fifth Third Mortgage Company (NFP)
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment for Fifth Third Mortgage Co. on its foreclosure complaint.

Charles Washington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony pointing a firearm, but reverses conviction of Class D felony criminal mischief. Remands for trial court to enter judgment of conviction and sentence for criminal mischief as a Class B misdemeanor.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.