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
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