ILNews

Opinions Aug. 11, 2010

August 11, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Eddie Lamar Carlisle
10-1173
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge William C. Lee.
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress. Carlisle didn’t have a privacy interest in the bag he was carrying, which contained drugs and paraphernalia, when police came to the house during a drug sweep. The officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity was occurring and that Carlisle was armed and dangerous, thereby making the initial stop proper.

United States of America v. Robert J. Cantrell
09-1856
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Rudy Lozano.
Criminal. Affirms 78-month sentence for committing honest services fraud, using position in public office to steer contracts to a third party in exchange for kickbacks, and other convictions. The honest services fraud counts are not unconstitutionally vague and the judge addressed Cantrell’s arguments for leniency.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mary Beth & Perry Lucas v. U.S. Bank, N.A., et al.
28A01-0910-CV-482
Civil. Reverses denial of the Lucases’ motion for a jury trial on their counterclaims and third-party claims against their mortgage holder and loan servicer. The essential features of the cause are not equitable. Remands with instructions they be granted a jury trial on their legal causes of actions.

D.H. v. State of Indiana
49A05-1002-JV-92
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for committing what would be Class D felony battery if committed by an adult. The doctrine of transferred intent supports the delinquency finding. Because D.H. admitted he intended to punch the other student, the fact he mistakenly hit his teacher cannot act as a defense.

Brian N. Stearman v. State of Indiana (NFP)

29A02-1002-CR-214
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child solicitation.

Paternity of I.H.; R.P. v. C.H. (NFP)
84A04-1004-JP-237
Juvenile. Affirms order finding R.P. to be father of I.H. and requiring father to pay $47 per week in child support plus an arrearage of $7,238.

Devon Sterling v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0910-CR-606
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder.

Paternity of C.T.; J.M. v. R.T. (NFP)
33A01-1003-JP-184
Juvenile. Affirms order granting father R.T.’s motion for relief from judgment.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J..; J.L. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
34A02-1001-JT-209
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT