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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT