ILNews

Opinions July 23, 2014

July 23, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
United States of America v. Haitham Mohamed
13-2368
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Reverses conviction of knowingly transporting and possessing contraband cigarettes. The District Court erred in denying Mohamed’s motions for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Willie L. Montgomery v. State of Indiana
82A05-1401-CR-34
Criminal. On interlocutory appeal, rejects Montgomery’s challenge of the denial of his motion to dismiss a charge of failure to register as a sex or violent offender in Vanderburgh County because he has already been prosecuted for failing to register in Pike County. The charge in question is not barred under I.C. 35-34-1-4(a)(7) and does not violate double jeopardy principles. Remands for trial.

Joseph Laycock v. Joseph Sliwkowski, M.D.
79A04-1310-CT-521
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Sliwkowski on Laycock’s complaint that the doctor had a duty to see that Laycock obtained proper treatment.  The designated evidence does not establish a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of causation.

Briandre Q. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1310-CR-428
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Joseph Chadwick Cole v. State of Indiana (NFP)
69A05-1402-CR-92
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

In Re: the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.J. (Minor Child), And D.C. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A04-1312-JT-646
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating parental rights.

Freemond Jordan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1310-CR-540
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class B felony attempted robbery.

Walter J. Bramage v. Discover Bank (NFP)
45A04-1312-CC-636
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Discover Bank.

David Jastrzembski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1312-CR-481
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony check fraud.

Joseph R. Mosley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1312-CR-530
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to 23 counts of Class D felony theft.

Shannon Goodman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1401-CR-5
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony burglary resulting in bodily injury.

Adam Trusty and Brittany Trusty v. David L. Hood (NFP)
08A05-1309-CC-466
Civil collection. Affirms claim of breach of contract to sell residential real estate against the Trustys.

Delvon Tolbert v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1310-CR-564
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony forgery.

Adam Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1311-CR-566
Criminal. Affirms denial of Taylor’s motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his vehicle and his sentence for Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Class D felony dealing in marijuana, Class D felony possession of a controlled substance and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT