ILNews

Opinions Jan. 10, 2014

January 10, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Thursday.
Julio Cesar Chavarria v. United States of America
11-3549
Criminal. Affirms District Court order dismissing Chavarria’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that led to his deportation after conviction of cocaine distribution charges. The panel found the distinction between affirmative misadvice and failure to advise does not evade the non-retroactive ruling of Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010).

Indiana Court of Appeals
Luis Antonio Palacio v. Raquel Villavicencio (NFP)
49A02-1305-DR-397
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of father’s request to modify child support.

In the Matter of the Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of D.C. & A.R. (Minor Children), and T.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
49A05-1306-JT-291
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In Re the Marriage of James Barnum Gregory v. Ellen Davies Gregory (NFP)
49A05-1305-DR-205
Domestic relation. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands for recalculation of husband’s child support and educational support obligations.

Patrick Palmer v. State of Indiana (NFP)

03A04-1306-CR-271
Criminal. Affirms 25-year aggregate sentence for convictions of Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury, Class D felony attempted obstruction of justice, Class A misdemeanors invasion of privacy and battery, and a habitual offender enhancement.

James Christian Warner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A01-1305-CR-213
Criminal. Affirms 20-year sentence with two years suspended for conviction of Class B felony possession of methamphetamine.
 
Joshua Batchelor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1306-CR-259
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

In Re the Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of B.W., A.W., W.S., & U.S., B.W., and J.S. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
33A01-1306-JT-270
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana opinions by IL deadline Friday.
 

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT