ILNews

Opinions April 4, 2014

April 4, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Thursday.

United States of America v. Lori Hargis
12-2153
Criminal. Affirms 60-month sentence for Lori Hargis’ conviction of conspiracy to use fire to commit wire fraud for her role in recruiting a man to set fire to her home to collect insurance proceeds. Circuit judges rejected Hargis’ argument that the District Court erred when it adjusted her sentence from the guideline range of 15 to 21 months in prison, finding that the judge adequately explained his rationale for imposing sentence.

Indiana Supreme Court
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Thursday.

Christopher Groce and Tracey Groce v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, and Michael A. Meek
48S02-1307-CT-472
Civil tort. Affirms trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants that also was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Applying Filip v. Block, 879 N.E.2d 1076 (Ind. 2008), justices held the trial court properly granted summary judgment in the Groce’s negligence claim because their homeowner’s insurance policy failed to cover full replacement value after a 2007 fire. While the claim was filed less than two years after the fire, justices held that in the exercise of ordinary diligence in reviewing their homeowner’s insurance policy, the Groces could have timely discovered that the company's replacement cost liability was capped at the dwelling loss coverage limit no later than the date of their first policy renewal in 2003.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Bruce E. Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
47A01-1304-CR-148
Criminal. Affirms convictions and aggregate 16-year sentence for Class B felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine and Class D felony possession of chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture controlled substances.

Corey Coleman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-594
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

In re: the Grandparent Visitation of C.S.N.: Brooke Neuhoff v. Scott A. Ubelhor and Angela S. Ubelhor (NFP)
19A05-1311-MI-542
Miscellaneous. Stays trial court order granting visitation with minor child to parental grandparents and retains jurisdiction. Remands to the trial court with instructions to issue new findings and conclusions within 30 days. Grandparent visitation is suspended pending review.

Shawna Gallagher v. Jacob Gallagher (NFP)
37A03-1308-DR-342
Domestic. Reverses order modifying physical custody of minor children in favor of father, Jacob Gallagher, finding the trial court erred because there was no substantial change in circumstance.

In re: the Marriage of: Carrie A. Chapman v. Stephen L. Chapman (NFP)
02A05-1307-DR-343
Domestic. Affirms award of child support.

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

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT