ILNews

Opinions Aug. 5, 2014

August 5, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinions were posted after IL deadline Monday:
Marilyn R. Boley v. Carolyn W. Colvin, acting commissioner of Social Security
13-1252
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division. Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Vacates District Court’s dismissal of Boley’s petition for judicial review of the decision by an administrative law judge that denied her request for a hearing on the denial of benefits. Remands with instructions to decide whether substantial evidence and appropriate procedures underlie the decision that she lacks “good cause” for her delay in seeking intra-agency review. Overrules Watters v. Harris, 656 F. 2d 234 (7th Cir. 1980).

Augustus Light v. John F. Caraway, Warden
13-1554
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson.
Civil. Finds Light satisfies all three Davenport factors and was eligible to file a petition for habeas relief under the savings clause of Section 2255(e). But a consideration of the merits of his petition leads to the same conclusion as the District Court: Light is not eligible for relief.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Dustin Blythe v. State of Indiana
71A03-1306-CR-228
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s order granting the state’s motion to amend the charging information. Finds that Blythe was able to present an appropriate defense to the amended charges and in fact did so from the start of his trial. Remands with instructions to vacate eight of Blythe’s nine convictions for forgery because the evidence reveals the falsified signatures were placed on the ballot petitions during a relatively short period of time in St. Joseph County and the placement of the falsified signatures was performed for a single purpose. Also orders trial court to vacate Blythe’s conviction for falsely making a petition of nomination because it is a factually lesser included offense of the forgeries.

Joshua Devine v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1312-CR-604
Criminal. Affirms 16-year sentence for Class B felony attempted robbery.  

The City of Sullivan v. North American Latex Corp, Kenneth Wayne Plummer, and Others Owning Property (NFP)
77A01-1401-PL-11
Civil plenary. Affirms order granting the remonstrance petitions of North American Latex Corp., et al., and declaring the city’s proposed annexation of an adjacent parcel to be invalid.
 

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