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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT