ILNews

Opinions April 12, 2012

April 12, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jaymie T. Mount
11-2616
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Remands for resentencing after the District Court denied the government’s motion for Mount to receive an additional one-level reduction following his guilty plea, citing Mount’s flight from charges. The additional reduction is mandatory once the government determines that the criteria spelled out in U.S.S.G. Section 3E1.1(b) are satisfied and it makes the necessary motion.

United States of America v. Anthony Raupp
11-2215
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Criminal. Amends original opinion issued March 9, 2012, in which majority affirmed 100-month sentence and determination Raupp is a career offender. Judge Diane Wood dissents.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Morse, M.D. v. Jeffrey Wayne Davis

84A05-1103-CT-140
Civil tort. Affirms judgment against Dr. Morse following a jury trial on Davis’ complaint alleging medical malpractice for failure to diagnose Davis’ colon cancer. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded from evidence at trial certain expert testimony, a medical record and the testimony of a treating physician and nurse.

Jarrad L. Mastin v. State of Indiana
18A02-1109-CR-890
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for one count of Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class B felony child molesting. Mastin did not demonstrate that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings denied him a fair trial. There is sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude he committed child molesting by sexual intercourse.

H.V. and O.P. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A05-1108-JT-506
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Robert E. Stanley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

18A02-1109-CR-834
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony home improvement fraud.

Gary Anderson Proby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1110-CR-522
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Johnny Lee Gibson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1109-CR-494
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony rape.

D.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1110-JV-533
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for committing what would be Class C felony intimidation and two acts that would have been Class B misdemeanor possession of a knife on school property, if committed by an adult.

Jason Haste and Jamie R. Haste v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1107-CR-364
Criminal. Affirms the Hastes’ convictions of and sentences for maintaining a common nuisance and possession of marijuana as Class D felonies, but vacates their convictions of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana due to double jeopardy violations.

Joseph Adams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A04-1110-CR-562
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief and the revocation of Adams’ probation.

David Paul Burns v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1108-CR-364
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Rodney W. Robinson v. Arthur Cashwell & Roxie Battle (NFP)
45A03-1107-SC-351
Small claim. Affirms judgment against Robinson and in favor of Cashwell and Battle on Robinson’s claim that the defendants had his truck improperly towed.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT