ILNews

Opinions Aug. 8, 2011

August 8, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Wanda Joshua, et al.
10-2140, 10-2181, 10-2182
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Philip Simon.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of mail fraud. Although the evidence of the mailing element of mail fraud was thin, it was enough to send the case to the jury. Finds the defendants arguments that Skilling v. United States requires the court to set aside their convictions, and that the District Court improperly instructed the jury regarding their advice-of-counsel defense have no merit.

United States of America v. Anthony Rutledge
10-2734
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney.
Criminal. Because the 7th Circuit couldn’t find the necessary credibility finding in the trial record, the judges were unable to make an informed decision about the District Court’s decision to deny the Batson challenge. Remands to the District Court for further proceedings as outlined in the opinion.

United States of America v. Wynell Gray
10-3936
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge James T. Moody.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Medicaid fraud and conspiracy to defraud the government and a sentence of 33 months in prison and $846,115 in restitution to Indiana Medicaid. Even if the timestamp evidence were Brady material that the prosecution had concealed from the defense, that concealment wouldn’t have been a reversible error because the evidence would not have changed the outcome of the trial assuming the jury was reasonable. The judge’s declining to tell the jury that a witness had refused treatment at the courthouse for an illness before testifying was proper. A person will often refuse treatment because he is feeling better, not just because he is trying to not testify.

Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Karamchand Paul, et al. v. Home Bank SB
55A01-1012-MF-635
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment for Home Bank SB and the denial of summary judgment for Drs. Paul, Singh, and Ansari regarding guaranties for a subordinate loan. The superior loan and the subordinate loan were two entirely separate contractual transactions, and the integration clause in the superior guaranty integrated only those agreements that were part of the negotiations directly leading to the superior loan. The doctors can’t now complain that the bank failed to advise them as to the meaning of the superior guaranty because they failed to read the guaranty or seek the advice of legal counsel before signing.

Brad Curtis and Rhonda Curtis v. The National Insurance Group and Celina Insurance Group (NFP)
01A05-1011-CT-718
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for The National Mutual Insurance Co. and Celina Insurance Group on the Curtises’ complaint for damages for breach of contract, violation of Indiana insurance law, and bad faith.

Paul Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1012-CR-1445
Criminal. Affirms order that Davis serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence following a probation violation.

Robert Fiedler v. Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication, et al. (NFP)
49A02-1011-MI-1263
Miscellaneous. Affirms dismissal of Fiedler’s petition for judicial review of an administrative permit.

Leroy H. Hall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-PC-65
Post conviction. Reverses denial of petition for post-conviction relief and remands for a hearing and decision consistent with the Indiana Rules of Post-Conviction Relief.

Phillip D. Fairholm v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1101-CR-84
Criminal. Affirms order that Fairholm serve the entire five years of his suspended sentence following the revocation of probation.

Joseph Lundy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1012-CR-765
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence.

B.G. v. J.B. (NFP)
52A02-1101-DR-11
Domestic relation. Dismisses B.G.’s appeal of the order modifying custody of his children, parenting time, and child support.

Alex Callison v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A01-1103-CR-133
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony burglary, Class B felony rape, Class B felony criminal deviate conduct, and Class D felony intimidation.

Jerome Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1008-PC-547
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to 16 cases for the week ending Aug. 5.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT