ILNews

Opinions April 18, 2013

April 18, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Johnnie C. Collins
12-3317
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence in drug case in which Collins entered a conditional plea of guilty to possession of crack with intent to distribute and possession of powder cocaine with intent to distribute.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Casey Walker v. State of Indiana
76A04-1204-CR-207
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony manufacturing methamphetamine and 30-year sentence. Walker has failed to establish that his mother was incompetent to give consent to search the residence. Moreover, there was undisputed testimony at trial that Walker’s wife gave verbal consent to search the residence, and Walker points to no evidence that he explicitly told the police that they could not enter his residence. Finds the police had consent to search the residence, and the trial court did not err by admitting the evidence.

TPUSA, Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development
93A02-1207-EX-605
Agency action. Reverses the liability administrative law judge’s determination that TPUSA owes $125,666.33 to the Department of Workforce Development in unemployment insurance contributions, interest and penalties for 2010 when TPUSA had no employees in Indiana and paid no wages here. Holds that where an employer has ceased business operations in Indiana, no longer pays wages or has any employees in the state, and files accurate reports with the Department indicating such, this may be considered “reasonable cause,” as required by Indiana Code 22-4-11-4(b), so as to allow for an adjustment (i.e., reduction) in the amount of the estimated contribution. Remands for a $200 fine to be imposed.

William Wressell v. R.L. Turner Corporation
06A01-1301-PL-5
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment in favor of R.L. Turner Corp. on Wressell’s lawsuit claiming he was significantly underpaid for his work on two public works projects. RLTC is not entitled to attorney fees. The trial court abused its discretion in striking paragraphs 12-18 of Morrhead’s affidavit regarding fringe benefits. The designated evidence generates a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether some of Wressell’s work for RLTC was as a skilled carpenter or skilled laborer and on the question of payment of fringe benefits.

J.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1209-JV-490
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication of Class D felony resisting law enforcement if committed by an adult.

Tory Simmers v. United Farm Family Mutual Insurance Company (NFP)
17A04-1211-CT-577
Civil tort. Affirms insurer is entitled to $5,000 set off and summary judgment.

Scott Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)

44A05-1207-PC-376
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Tyronne J. Noel v. State of Indiana (NFP)

87A01-1211-CR-525
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor reckless driving for passing a stopped school bus.

Maximilian Spiegel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1208-CR-687
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting.

Mark Vickery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1209-CR-740
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor domestic battery.

Timothy J. Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1209-PC-476
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Jane M. Burkart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
46A03-1211-CR-465
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation for failure to pay restitution.

Maura Leonard v. David Leonard (NFP)
49A04-1208-DR-439
Domestic relation. Affirms property distribution order in dissolution of marriage. The trial court erred in awarding the vehicle to the parties’ adult child and $4,000 in cash should have been included in the marital estate, but those errors were harmless. Declines to set aside dissolution decree.

Jevante Lancaster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1208-CR-635
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and placement in Marion County Criminal Corrections.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions 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