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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT