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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT