Supreme Court of the United States
U.S. justices to rule on retroactivity of case involving guilty pleas by immigrants
April 30, 2012
Jennifer NelsonThe Supreme Court of the United States will hear a case that stems from its 2010 decision Padilla v. Kentucky, in
which the justices held that criminal defense attorneys are obligated under the Sixth Amendment to advise noncitizen defendants
about immigration consequences of pleading guilty. The justices will now rule on whether its decision is retroactive.<
MoreGene patent case back at Circuit court
April 11, 2012
IL StaffMyriad Genetics, Inc. reported on March 26 that the United States Supreme Court remanded The Association for Molecular
Pathology, et al., v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al., No. 11-725, to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The Federal
Circuit will now reconsider its July 29, 2011, decision, which upheld Myriad’s patents on two breast cancer genes –
known collectively as BRCA 1/2
MoreSCOTUS declines to take Indiana criminal case
March 26, 2012
Michael HoskinsThe Supreme Court of the United States won’t take an Indiana case asking whether a defendant’s second trial was barred by
the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, and so a state Supreme Court decision on the issue will stand.
MoreIU Maurer professors to discuss affirmative action case
February 24, 2012
IL StaffA panel of Indiana University constitutional law experts will discuss the implications of the United States Supreme Court's
recent decision to hear Fisher v. Texas, a case challenging the University of Texas' affirmative action program.
MoreSCOTUS denies 4 Indiana cases, issues order in pending appeal
February 21, 2012
Michael HoskinsThe Supreme Court of the United States has declined to hear four cases from Indiana, and it has asked the federal government
to weigh in on a pending appeal about alleged workplace harassment involving Ball State University.
MoreCameras in SCOTUS bill referred to full Senate
February 10, 2012
IL StaffThe U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation Thursday that will allow cameras in the Supreme Court of the United
States. The measure, S.1945, was approved by an 11-7 vote.
MoreSCOTUS rules on scope of sex offender registration law
January 23, 2012
Michael HoskinsThe Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that a federal law requiring sex offenders to update their registration when
crossing states lines doesn’t automatically apply to those who committed their crimes before the law was passed.
MoreSCOTUS won't consider off-campus school speech
January 17, 2012
Michael HoskinsThe nation’s highest court has declined to take a pair of cases asking whether schools can censor the off-campus behavior
of students who post messages or photos against school officials or other students.
MoreSCOTUS denies Indiana church dispute
January 9, 2012
Michael HoskinsThe Supreme Court of the United States has declined to take an Indiana case involving a property and trustee election dispute
between the Zion Temple Apostolic Church in Gary and the son of the deceased founding pastor.
MoreFederal Circuit hears judges' pay case
December 19, 2011
Michael HoskinsA federal appellate court heard arguments Friday in a case that could ultimately decide if Congress has the authority to withhold
judicial pay increases as it’s done in the past or whether cost-of-living adjustments are required.
MoreKnowing the possible consequences
November 23, 2011
Michael HoskinsLegal community works to ensure defendants know plea agreements could impact immigration status.
MoreSupreme Court to hear Affordable Care Act challenges
November 14, 2011
Michael HoskinsIn what’s expected to be a historic constitutional test over how much power the federal government has to require individual
mandates for states, the Supreme Court of the United States will consider the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act
passed in 2010.
MoreSCOTUS takes Indianapolis sewer payment case
November 14, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari in a case that questions whether the city of Indianapolis violated
the federal Constitution in how it handled refunds for residents who paid assessments on local sewer projects.
MoreFederal court addresses resentencing issue
October 25, 2011
Michael HoskinsA federal appellate court’s general remand for resentencing doesn’t necessarily mean a defendant will receive
a lesser penalty or be able to introduce new arguments, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
MoreAG holds second civil, criminal justice summits
October 21, 2011
IL StaffIndiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller held his second annual Civil and Criminal Justice summits this week at Indiana University
School of Law — Indianapolis, focusing on financial protections for military service members and crime lab evidence
in trials.
MoreSCOTUS won't take Indiana bar exam case
October 11, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe Supreme Court of the United States has declined to take several Indiana cases, including a federal suit against the state’s
Board of Law Examiners filed by a man who wants to take the bar exam without going to law school.
MoreSCOTUS doesn't take any Indiana cases
October 3, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe Supreme Court of the United States has declined to take several Indiana cases, including a criminal appeal about whether
a stun belt restraint on a defendant during trial and sentencing is prejudicial.
MoreIndiana asks U.S. Supreme Court to take health care law challenge
September 28, 2011
IL StaffIndiana and 25 other states have filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States asking
the nation’s highest court to rule on a lawsuit involving the Affordable Care Act.
More7th Circuit holds lawyer rule on impact of guilty plea for immigrants not retroactive
August 24, 2011
Michael HoskinsA three-judge panel for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has determined a landmark decision from the Supreme Court of the
United States last year isn't retroactive. That rule required criminal defense attorneys to advise clients about the immigration
impact of signing a guilty plea, and this means past cases wouldn’t benefit from that holding even if those individuals
had been deprived of that Sixth Amendment right.
MoreLooking back on rulings
August 3, 2011
Michael HoskinsLooking in the rearview mirror on judicial precedent is a task that every judge on every court faces.
MoreCircuit Court affirms admission of drugs, sentence
July 22, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a man’s argument that his past conviction of vehicular flight isn’t
a crime of violence, citing a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court on that matter.
MoreSCOTUS asked to hear stun-belt case
July 20, 2011
Michael HoskinsWhen the Supreme Court of the United States returns for its new term beginning in October, Indiana will likely learn whether
the high court will hear a case relating to a stun-belt restraint used here during a convicted murder’s trial.
More7th Circuit sends Corcoran case back to trial court
June 23, 2011
Jennifer NelsonFollowing a remand from the United States Supreme Court in late 2010, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals admitted it made mistakes
in its recent decision involving a convicted murderer’s appeal and sent the case to the District Court to address habeas
relief claims.
MoreJustices rule vehicular flight from police is 'violent' felony
June 22, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe nation’s highest court affirmed an Indianapolis federal judge’s ruling, finding that someone who flees from
police in a vehicle is committing a “crime of violence” that justifies a longer sentence.
MoreSCOTUS rules on Wal-Mart class-certification case
June 20, 2011
Michael HoskinsWith a ruling from the nation’s highest court, an Indianapolis federal judge and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals learned
they were correct in how they decided a sex-bias suit involving Rolls Royce.
More
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Court Calendar
-
May 23, 2012 Covered Bridge Homeowners Association vs. Town of Sellersburg, Indiana - 5/23/12
-
June 1, 2012 Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co., et al. v. Michiana Contracting, et al. - 6/1/12
-
June 12, 2012 State of Indiana Military Department, et al. v. Continental Electric Co.
-
June 19, 2012 The City of Indianapolis v. National Trust Insurance Co., et al.
Indiana Lawyer Featured Advertisers
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
G. Michael Witte letter states he's suspended for three years. The case that got him suspended is identical to my estate case, including havin the Late Judge Deiter recuse himself because Newman had a conflict of interest with the judge. His Modus Operandi is nearly identical.
SIGNED BY G. MICHAEL WITTE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DATED MAY 17, 2012.
Your 6th complaint against Lawrence T. Newman filed on 4/12/2012. On 1/31/12, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an order suspending Lawrence T. Newman’s law license for a period of three years. More important, even after three years, Lawrence Todd Newman will not get his license back unless and until he goes through a separate proceeding to prove that he is fit to practice law. This is not an easy process, and the burden is upon Lawrence T. Newman to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to return to practice.
Because of the length of Lawrence T. Newman’s license suspension and the fact he may never succeed in getting his law license reinstated, we are not opening an investigation file at this time.
Should Lawrence T. Newman seek reinstatement in the future, we will open your file and ask Lawrence T. Newman to address your grievance as part of his burden of proving fitness. We have attempted to notify Lawrence T. Newman that this will be required of him.
It may disappoint you to hear that we will be doing nothing on your grievance at this time. However, the most our office can ever accomplish is to take away a lawyer’s license to practice law. We have already done that, albeit as a result of misconduct in cases other than your own. It makes better sense for our office to focus its limited resources on cases where the lawyers are still actively practicing law.
Is there any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division? I am the unfortunate victim of a retaliatory lawsuit brought by Lawrence Todd Newman, the attorney from an estate case on which I worked as a unsupervised personal representative in 2006. The contract agreement for that case stated that the estate would be responsible for all attorney fees, but Newman refused to close the nearly insolvent estate when my duties were complete and his fees were paid. Instead, he tried to extort additional attorney fees from me by keeping the case open to address a wrongful death claim, despite the estate’s heir’s lack of interest in pursuing it and an expert doctor’s opinion that it would not be worth doing so. He also knowingly deceived me into believing that a “closing statement” was needed to close the estate, even though this requirement had actually been waived by the estate’s heir. The heir’s attorney filed a motion to have Newman removed from the case. After the court closed the probate case with prejudice (barred from further litigation) Newman illegally re-opened the case in another courtroom.
As a result of complaints filed against him for these and similar actions, Newman has been suspended from practicing law for 18 months by the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. In retaliation, he has filed suit against me demanding additional attorney fees for the 2006 estate case, despite the fact that I made no agreement stating that I would pay any fees from my own assets on behalf of the estate. This lawsuit violates the rules of ethics, due process of law, and equal protection of law. Newman has been allowed to file ridiculous pleadings at an alarming rate and has been supported by a biased court system. Judge Carroll refuses to recuse himself from the case despite the fact that, by his own admission, he intends to grant Newman sanctions regardless of the evidence. When my former counsel discovered that the previous judge on the case, Judge Sosin, was a long-time close friend of Newman’s family, Judge Carroll commented for the record during a hearing that Judge Sosin in so many words “he finds the door “was weak for recusing himself from the case as a result of this obvious conflict of interest.
This case is a public policy issue. Statutes put in place to protect unsupervised personal representatives in probate matters are being ignored. This case will affect thousands of individuals involved in probating and the personal representation of estates. Justice cannot possibly be served as long as a biased judge is allowed to defend a “vexatious litigant,” as Newman has been described by Judge Logan in Bradenton, Florida court. If there is any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division, this case against me will be dismissed with prejudice.
Every affront to decency and every style adopted by criminals is not per se a constituttional violation. Only fools believe or espouse that.
This was an unnecessary change in law, a needless fiddling with a tax that impacted very very few hoosiers, but one that erodes a tax base benefitting very many hoosiers. Just because some people wanted to chalk up a "tax cut" on their legislative brag-list, and didnt give a fig about replacing the revenue any other way. Really stupid. I am a republican my whole life and this just shames me like hell. I have to use a fake name over this because I know my fellow republicans are all brain washed over tax cutting too.