ILNews

Opinions Aug. 13, 2014

August 13, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Indiana Supreme Court

Joshua Gomillia v. State of Indiana
49S02-1408-CR-521
Criminal. Affirms total executed sentence of 40 years imposed following a plea agreement to one count of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct and one count of Class B felony robbery. The nature and circumstances of the crime included the trial court’s discussion of the leadership role Gomillia played in the commission of the offenses, as well as the terror the victim suffered. Both are appropriate reasons justifying a sentence greater than the advisory term.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Peabody Midwest Mining LLC, formerly doing business as Black Beauty Coal Co. v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, and Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
13-1659
Review of order. Denies Peabody’s petition for review of the administrative law judge’s decision to uphold a citation for not having a protective mound along the outer bank of elevated roadways. Substantial evidence supports the commission’s determination that a bench – a ledged cut into the side of the pit – to and from the dragline constitutes a roadway, even during the dragline move, thus requiring the berms, or protective mounds; and the ALJ’s decision that the company violated regulations by failing to maintain a berm on two-tenths of a mile of the bench.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court

Douglas A. Guilmette v. State of Indiana
71S04-1310-CR-705
Criminal. Affirms denial of Guilmette’s motion to suppress DNA evidence found in blood on his shoe. Evidence properly seized by police may be examined and subjected to scientific testing without further warrant.

Indiana Court of Appeals
SCI Propane, LLC; South Central Indiana Rural Electric Membership Corporation; et al v. Courtney Frederick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Stephen Frederick, deceased
55A04-1211-PL-586
Civil plenary. Affirms award of attorney fees to the estate because, although the General Wrongful Death Statute does not explicitly provide for the recovery of attorney fees, it does specify that damages are not limited to those enumerated in the statute. Finds the trial court abused its discretion in calculating the amount of the fees. Remands with the trial court to revise its award so that it is consistent with the contingency fee agreement between the estate and its counsel. Also finds the trial court did not err when it reduced its award of attorney fees according to fault allocation because its award was compensatory in nature and subject to the state’s Comparative Fault Act.

Joshua Frierson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1312-CR-596
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license and Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Maurice Hamler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1312-CR-609
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

 

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