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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT