ILNews

Opinions July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014
Keywords
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. Lorenzo Mosley
13-3184
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge James T. Moody.
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Mosley’s supervised release after judge found Mosley had committed the alleged violations, which included dealing cocaine, and sentence to 21 months in prison. The District Court erred in admitting a hearsay statement without finding there was “good cause,” but the error was harmless.

Thursday’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court

Gayle Fischer v. Michael and Noel Heymann
49S02-1309-PL-620
Civil plenary. Affirms the award of damages and attorney fees to Fischer after the Heymanns broke their contract to purchase her condo. Affirms the trial court’s refusal to find that Fischer’s only reasonable option to mitigate her damages was to respond to the Heymanns’ demands. The trial court did not err in finding that Fischer should have mitigated her damages by selling the condo for $240,000 in February 2007.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Todd DeWayne Kelly v. State of Indiana
41A01-1311-CR-519
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. The state presented clear evidence that Kelly indirectly communicated with his ex-wife, who had a protective order against Kelly, when he sent a text to their daughter, who showed it to her mother.

Clyde Davis v. State of Indiana
49A02-1311-CR-938
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. There is no evidence Davis was in danger – past or present – at the time of his arrest and the state’s argument that he was in danger of being struck by a car was speculative.

Moran Electric Service, Inc., and Threaded Rod Company, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, City of Indianapolis, Ertel Manufacturing Corp.
49A02-1305-MI-432
Miscellaneous/Rehearing. Affirms original opinion in all respects. The original opinion did not misinterpret the trial court’s role in the environmental action involving Moran, Threaded Rod and Ertel with regard to disbursement of escrowed funds. IDEM cannot perform remedial actions and obtain damages from a party through an administrative order – it must go to court to obtain those.

Carlin Graffenread v. State of Indiana
49A05-1310-CR-499
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to defer dealing in marijuana charge. The language of Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-12 is clear and unambiguous on its face and does not run afoul of double jeopardy or collateral estoppels protections.

Joseph M. Bell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1311-CR-464
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted dealing in methamphetamine.

Phyllis Roy v. Jerry Gidrewicz (NFP)
45A03-1306-PO-263
Protective order. Affirms trial court’s denial of Roy’s motion to correct error.

Kenneth Ferrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1311-CR-567
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions Thursday by IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT