ILNews

Opinions August 12, 2013

August 12, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Thomas H. Hurlow v. United States of America
12-1374
Criminal. Reverses the district court’s denial of Hurlow’s 2255 petition and remands for further proceedings. Rules Hurlow’s allegation - he would not have entered into the plea agreement had his counsel informed him of his potentially meritorious Fourth Amendment claim - was sufficient to overcome the wavier in his plea agreement not to contest his conviction or sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255.


Indiana Tax Court
Miller Pipeline Corporation v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue

49T10-1012-TA-64
Tax Court. Denies Miller Pipeline’s petition for partial summary judgment on its appeal of a Department of Revenue final determination denying its claim for a refund of gross retail sales and use tax paid between 2005-2007. The court held that evidence submitted in support of the motion was not properly designated and is inadmissible. The court will by separate order schedule a case management conference with parties to discuss pre-trial matters and scheduling.


Indiana Court of Appeals
Billy Savoy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1301-CR-14
Criminal. Reverses and remands to the trial court with instructions to vacate Savoy’s conviction for theft, a Class D felony, leaving as is his conviction and sentence for criminal mischief, a Class D felony. Rules Savoy has shown that there is a reasonable possibility that the trial court used the same evidentiary facts to establish the essential elements of theft and criminal mischief thus violating Indiana’s Double Jeopardy Clause.

Martin Mendoza v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A04-1302-CR-68
Criminal. Reverses and remands the denial of Mendoza’s motion for return of his $658 taken at the time of his arrest. Rules there is no finding based on admissible evidence that Mendoza could not lawfully posses the property under the State forfeiture statutes or that Mendoza failed to file his motion properly. Consequently, the trial court was without authority to deny his motion for return of property.


Tammy Coleman v. Darryl Davis (NFP)

49A02-1210-PO-793
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=2013/august/08121303pdm.pdf
Order of Protection. Affirms trial court’s decision to enter a protective order against Coleman and in favor of Davis. Concludes the evidence was sufficient to permit the trial court, acting as the trier of fact, to reasonably conclude that Coleman was a “family or household member” who threatened physical harm to Davis or placed Davis in fear of physical harm, thereby committing “domestic or family violence” under the Civil Protection Order Act. In his dissent, John Baker argued the evidence presented in court failed to establish a sufficient threat under the CPOA.

The Indiana Supreme Court issued no opinions before IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT