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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT