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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT