Opinions Feb. 22, 2013

February 22, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Northeastern Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. Wabash Valley Power Association

Vacates preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Indiana, and remands the case to the district court so it may remand it to state court. Found the federal court does not have jurisdiction because the key questions of whether the contract was valid and whether the contract was breached are not questions of federal law.

Indiana Supreme Court
K.W. v. State of Indiana
Juvenile. Affirms Court of Appeals reversal of trial court ruling designating K.W. a delinquent for resisting law enforcement, and orders the delinquency adjudication vacated. Justices held that evidence was insufficient that K.W. acted “forcibly” to resist a school resource officer when he pulled away as the officer was attempting to handcuff him.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Clematine Hollingsworth v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms conviction for Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, holding that an amendment to the statute could not be retroactively applied.

Nathan Carl Gilbert v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remands for resentencing of a Kentucky inmate on four counts of burglary, holding he was denied due process at his sentencing hearing when he wasn’t allowed sufficient time to prepare or properly examine his pre-sentence investigation report. The court held that the “anti-shuffling” provision of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers was not violated when Gilbert was returned to Kentucky before his sentencing hearing could be held in Indiana because the proceeding did not constitute a trial as defined under that provision.

Joshua King v. State of Indiana

Criminal. Affirms King’s convictions for Class C felony battery, Class A misdemeanor battery, and Class D felony strangulation and remands for correction of the Abstract of Judgment which incorrectly lists King’s second battery conviction as a Class C felony. Ruled the court did not violate King’s rights under the Confrontation Clause when it admitted testimony given by a police officer based on statements from the victim. Also found the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted recordings of calls of King discussing the crime from jail.

John Kennendy v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Shawn W. Nicosin v. William J. Mesaeh and Loretta D. Mesaeh (NFP)

Miscellaneous/grandparent visitation. Reverses and remands the trial court’s grant of visitation of G.N. with her maternal grandparents, holding that the court erred by deviating from the requirements established in In re Guardianship of A.L.C., 902 N.E.2d 343, 356 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

Kelvin Hampton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Reverses and remands a denial of request for return of $146 in $1 bills and a photograph seized during a search of his residence, holding there was no indication the state instigated civil forfeiture proceedings.

Kevin Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief on convictions of Class A felony rape and criminal deviate conduct, Class B felony criminal confinement and Class C felony sexual battery.

Pablo C. Gallo v. Sandra Moira Hyland (NFP)
Domestic relations. Reverses and remands the trial court’s distribution of marital property order with instructions that the court follow the statutory presumption of equal distribution of property or set forth its rationale for deviating from it.

The Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.