Opinions July 17, 2014

July 17, 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. Lorenzo Mosley
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
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
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
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.
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
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted dealing in methamphetamine.

Phyllis Roy v. Jerry Gidrewicz (NFP)
Protective order. Affirms trial court’s denial of Roy’s motion to correct error.

Kenneth Ferrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.