ILNews

Opinions Dec. 29, 2010

December 29, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
USA v. James K. Taylor
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
10-2947
Criminal. Affirms sentenced for 64 months’ imprisonment following a guilty plea to possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The sentence was based in part on the District Court’s conclusion that his prior Indiana conviction for Class C felony battery qualified as a “crime of violence” under § 4B1.2(a) of the federal sentencing guidelines, enhancing his recommended base offense level. Taylor argued his battery conviction was not a crime of violence for the purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.

USA v. Dewayne Cartwright
10-1879
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence
Criminal. Affirms District Court’s denial of Cartwright’s motion to suppress evidence of a firearm in his car. Cartwright was charged with possessing a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). After he entered a conditional guilty plea, he was sentenced to 84 months in prison. Cartwright argued the District Court erred in applying the inevitable discovery doctrine after the District Court determined the firearm would have been inevitably discovered pursuant to an inventory search of the car.

Indiana Supreme Court
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, et al. v. Standard Fusee Corporation
49S04-1006-CV-318
Civil. Reverses trial court and remands the case for application of Maryland law to be applied to the entire dispute regarding whether the insurance company had a duty to defend Standard Fusee Corporation following discovery of perchlorate contamination at factories that made flares. Concludes that Maryland is the state with the most intimate contacts to the facts and that its law should therefore be applied in this case.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. Richard J. Laker, Jr.
24A04-0912-CR-736
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s dismissal of the charge that Laker operated a farm tractor while his driver’s license was suspended. Reverses and remands three other charges that relate to Laker’s operation of the farm tractor while intoxicated after a breath test determined his blood alcohol concentration was 0.10. An officer observed Laker hitching the tractor to a car that was in a ditch when Laker told him he planned to use the tractor to tow the car for a friend.

Anthony Mark Sewell v. State of Indiana
73A01-1005-CR-194
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of Sewell’s conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief. Finds that a handwritten letter from Sewell, received within 30 days of his conviction, was not sufficient because it did not comply with the content requirements for a notice of appeal.

Paternity of P.R. and A.R.; H.B. v. J.R.
36A01-1005-JP-255
Juvenile. Concludes the trial court properly took judicial notice of a protective order that H.B. (mother) obtained against an ex-boyfriend and then considered it in the custody modification proceedings with J.R. (father). H.B. did not request an opportunity to be heard pursuant to Rule 201(e) after the trial court took judicial notice of “records of a court in this state,” which is allowed pursuant to a 2010 amendment to Indiana Evidence Rule 201(b).

State of Indiana v. Robert J. Seidl
19A01-1006-CR-309
Criminal. Reverses and remands trial court’s order granting Seidl’s motion to suppress the state’s evidence against him. In his motion to suppress, Seidl argued that his consent for officers to search his barn was involuntary.

Jeffrey L. Gavin v. Calcars AB, Inc., and Astra Financial, Inc.
49A05-1007-PL-501
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Calcars AB Inc. and Astra Financial Services Inc. on Gavin’s complaint seeking damages under the Wage Payment Statute. The parties dispute whether the Wage Payment Statute or the Wage Claims Statute applied to this wage dispute. Gavin presented a single dispositive issue: whether the trial court erred when it concluded that Gavin’s claims were governed by the Wage Claims Statute and were barred as a matter of law because he did not first file his claims with the Indiana Department of Labor.

Brian J. Woods v. State of Indiana
79A02-1004-CR-418
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s determination that Woods is a habitual offender.

J.B. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1005-JV-323
Juvenile. Affirms J.B.’s adjudication as a delinquent child for committing aggravated battery, a Class B felony when committed by an adult.


E-Z Construction Company, Inc. v. Sellersburg Stone Co., Inc. (NFP)
10A01-1002-PL-110
Civil. Affirms award of service charges to the plaintiff in a contract dispute between a plaintiff supplier and defendant prime contractor.

In the Matter of M.M.; S.H. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
85A02-1006-JC-776
Juvenile. Affirms trial court’s determination that M.M. is a child in need of services.

Leslie J. Edwards v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1006-CR-758
Criminal. Vacates Edwards’ convictions of felony possession of marijuana and paraphernalia and remands with instructions that the court retry him on those two counts.

Diven Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A01-1006-CR-286
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following convictions of burglary, a Class C felony, and theft, a Class D felony.

William Roberts v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A05-1002-CR-119
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of Roberts’ motion to set aside his guilty plea.

Kendall Bradbury v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1004-CR-212
Criminal. Affirms Bradbury’s conviction of invasion of privacy following his arrest for violating a protective order his wife had filed in June 2007 when the couple lived in Kentucky.

Vilma (Struss) Papa v. Nicholas Struss (NFP)
64A03-1008-DR-428
Civil. Reverses and remands trial court’s denial of notice of intent to relocate.

Edward Weaver v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1004-CR-460
Criminal. Affirms revocation of home detention and probation. Remands for court to clarify its sentencing order due to a conflict between written and oral statements.

Joseph R. Fabre v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1005-CR-378
Criminal. Affirms aggregate sentence of 11 years following convictions of possession of cocaine, a Class C felony; two counts of possession of cocaine, Class D felonies; and one count of possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor.

Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of N.B.; N.B. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
32A01-1007-JT-321
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights. .

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. If real money was spent on this study, what a shame. And if some air-head professor tries to use this to advance a career, pity the poor student. I am approaching a time that i (and others around me) should be vigilant. I don't think I'm anywhere near there yet, but seeing the subject I was looking forward to something I might use to look for some benchmarks. When finally finding my way to the hidden questionnaire all I could say to myself was...what a joke. Those are open and obvious signs of any impaired lawyer (or non-lawyer, for that matter), And if one needs a checklist to discern those tell-tale signs of impairment at any age, one shouldn't be practicing law. Another reason I don't regret dropping my ABA membership some number of years ago.

  2. The case should have been spiked. Give the kid a break. He can serve and maybe die for Uncle Sam and can't have a drink? Wow. And they won't even let him defend himself. What a gross lack of prosecutorial oversight and judgment. WOW

  3. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  4. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  5. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

ADVERTISEMENT