ILNews

Opinions April 7, 2014

April 7, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Stephanie L. Donelli
13-2548
Criminal. Affirms 60-month sentence for convictions of wire fraud and tax evasion. Donelli’s claim that the trial court erred by failing to consider her mental illness, bipolar II disorder, as a principal argument in mitigation was rejected because she failed to present the diagnosis as a principal argument in mitigation, and because she waived the argument by failing to object to her sentence apart from the fact that it was above the guidleline range.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Kevin J. Mamon v. State of Indiana
30A01-1301-CR-47
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness, Class B misdemeanor reckless driving and an enhancement for being a habitual offender. The panel found no grounds for reversal on Mamon’s claim that admitting evidence from a traffic stop for following too closely in a construction zone was fundamental error. Mamon failed to preserve an objection at the trial court, and there is no claim of evidence fabrication or willful malfeasance on the part of law enforcement.

In the Matter of: L.P., a Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services, K.K., Mother v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
77A01-1310-JC-427
Juvenile. Reverses determination that L.P. was a child in need of services, holding that a factual finding of an isolated use of methamphetamine, without more, does not support the conclusion of law that L.P. was a CHINS.  

Sheaff Brock Investment Advisors, LLC v. David Morton
29A02-1306-CC-553
Civil collection. Affirms trial court ruling that Sheaff Brock Investment Advisors breached its contract with adviser David Morton and was liable for additional compensation under the Wage Claims Act. Because the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on those claims, Morton is entitled to appellate attorney fees. The trial court also did not err in entering summary judgment in favor of Sheaff Brock on Morton’s claim on constructive fraud.

Umbrella Family Waiver Services, LLC v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration
49A02-1306-PL-525
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of Umbrella’s Verified Petition for Judicial Review. Rules the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration followed the terms of the contract by giving a 60-day notice of termination and did not exceed its statutory authority by not providing a reason for the termination.  

Christian Dailey v. David Building Group (NFP)
49A02-1310-CT-906
Civil tort. Affirms trial court order granting summary judgment in favor of Davis Building Group on Christian Dailey’s negligence claim.

North Central Cooperative, Inc. v. John R. Garrison (NFP)
08A02-1304-CT-345
Civil tort. Affirms trial court order granting Garrison’s motion to amend his negligence complaint.

Andre Botley v. Dilmar Sanchez (NFP)
49A05-1311-CT-567
Civil tort. Reverses trial court dismissal of Botley’s negligence claim, remanding with instructions to reinstate the claim.

Trena Marie Gagliardo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A03-1306-CR-209
Criminal. Affirms Class C felony conviction of nonsupport of a dependant child.

Lakila Gill v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1307-CR-633
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder and reverses sua sponte conviction of Class B felony aggravated battery on double-jeopardy grounds. Remands with instructions to vacate the battery conviction. Gill’s 20-year aggregate sentence is unchanged.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by 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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT