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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT