ILNews

Opinions Aug. 13, 2014

August 13, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinions were posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Indiana Supreme Court

Joshua Gomillia v. State of Indiana
49S02-1408-CR-521
Criminal. Affirms total executed sentence of 40 years imposed following a plea agreement to one count of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct and one count of Class B felony robbery. The nature and circumstances of the crime included the trial court’s discussion of the leadership role Gomillia played in the commission of the offenses, as well as the terror the victim suffered. Both are appropriate reasons justifying a sentence greater than the advisory term.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Peabody Midwest Mining LLC, formerly doing business as Black Beauty Coal Co. v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, and Secretary of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
13-1659
Review of order. Denies Peabody’s petition for review of the administrative law judge’s decision to uphold a citation for not having a protective mound along the outer bank of elevated roadways. Substantial evidence supports the commission’s determination that a bench – a ledged cut into the side of the pit – to and from the dragline constitutes a roadway, even during the dragline move, thus requiring the berms, or protective mounds; and the ALJ’s decision that the company violated regulations by failing to maintain a berm on two-tenths of a mile of the bench.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court

Douglas A. Guilmette v. State of Indiana
71S04-1310-CR-705
Criminal. Affirms denial of Guilmette’s motion to suppress DNA evidence found in blood on his shoe. Evidence properly seized by police may be examined and subjected to scientific testing without further warrant.

Indiana Court of Appeals
SCI Propane, LLC; South Central Indiana Rural Electric Membership Corporation; et al v. Courtney Frederick, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Stephen Frederick, deceased
55A04-1211-PL-586
Civil plenary. Affirms award of attorney fees to the estate because, although the General Wrongful Death Statute does not explicitly provide for the recovery of attorney fees, it does specify that damages are not limited to those enumerated in the statute. Finds the trial court abused its discretion in calculating the amount of the fees. Remands with the trial court to revise its award so that it is consistent with the contingency fee agreement between the estate and its counsel. Also finds the trial court did not err when it reduced its award of attorney fees according to fault allocation because its award was compensatory in nature and subject to the state’s Comparative Fault Act.

Joshua Frierson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1312-CR-596
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license and Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Maurice Hamler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1312-CR-609
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

 

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT