Opinions April 12, 2012

April 12, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jaymie T. Mount
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
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

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
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)
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

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

Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony home improvement fraud.

Gary Anderson Proby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Johnny Lee Gibson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony rape.

D.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief and the revocation of Adams’ probation.

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

Rodney W. Robinson v. Arthur Cashwell & Roxie Battle (NFP)
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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?