ILNews

Opinions April 7, 2011

April 7, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jeffrey P. Taylor
10-2715
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge James T. Moody.
Criminal. Reverses conviction of and 10-year sentence for violating 18 U.S.C. Section 2422(b), which deals with knowingly persuading or enticing someone under 18 to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so. The section is ambiguous and sexual activity and sexual act could be synonyms and therefore require contact between the perpetrator and victim for a conviction. Remands with instructions to acquit Taylor. Judge Manion concurs in a separate opinion.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Carol Cutter, et al. v. Geneva Herbst, personal representative of the Estate of Jeffry A. Herbst, deceased
49A04-1006-PL-343
Civil plenary. Affirms order on Herbst’s motion to correct errors, awarding the estate $750,000 in damages following a calculation of pre-negligence and post-negligence survival chances. The estate did not waive the pre-negligence versus post-negligence survival argument. The evidence shows that Jeffry’s primary care physician’s and the hospital’s medical negligence significantly decreased his chances for survival. Affirms trial court determination that Jeffry’s post-negligence chance of survival was 10 percent, not 0 percent as the estate argued. Chief Judge Robb dissents.

Stephen Harvey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A03-1008-PC-469
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Brian Redd v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1010-CR-533
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child molesting.

Michael L. Yates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A04-1010-CR-606
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony attempted armed robbery.

Joseph Munden v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1009-CR-534
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license.

Jacob M. Jones v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1009-CR-959
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT