ILNews

Opinions Dec. 2, 2010

December 2, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Juan A. Corona-Gonzalez a/k/a Juan R. Ramirez
09-3993
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge David F. Hamilton.
Criminal. Reverses sentence for drug convictions and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. There is a substantial chance that the District Court’s misapprehension of whether Corona-Gonzalez was deported and returned to the country illegally played a significant role in the adjudication of his sentence. Remands to allow the District Court to reassess the sentence free of the factual misapprehension.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Paul J. Kocielko v. State of Indiana
20A03-1002-CR-218
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor and habitual offender adjudication. Remands with instructions to set aside Class C felony conviction of and sentence for sexual misconduct with a minor because Kocielko committed acts against a single victim in one confrontation, so double jeopardy prohibitions prevented his being convicted of and sentenced for the Class C felony charge. Affirms in all other respects.

Kenneth Pope and Judie Pope v. Hancock County Rural Electric d/b/a Central Indiana Power
30A05-1001-CT-3
Civil tort. Affirms order granting Central Indiana Power’s motion for judgment on the evidence in the Popes’ suit alleging the company was negligent because its failure to timely restore power to their home caused Kenneth to injure himself in the dark. The Popes didn’t establish that a standard of care existed by which CIP should have worked to restore power to its customers after the storm and that there was a breach of that standard of care. CIP’s actions were not the proximate cause of Kenneth’s injuries.

James and Robert New v. Personal Representative of the Estate of Martha New
71A04-0912-CV-744
Civil. Affirms denial of Robert’s combined motion to correct error, motion for relief from judgment, and motion for reconsideration of the court’s approval of the estate of Martha New’s third amended final accounting. The probate court didn’t err when it approved the estate’s third amended accounting without affording time for notice and a hearing. Remands for a determination of appellate attorney fees for the estate.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT