ILNews

Opinions Jan. 12, 2012

January 12, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Michael Redmond and Charles Avery Jr.
10-1947, 10-3914
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Criminal. Affirms denial of Avery’s request to withdraw his guilty plea to crack cocaine distribution, the calculation of the crack cocaine quantity attributed to him and his sentence. Remands for the District Court to reconsider Redmond’s sentence following a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base in light of United States v. Corner.

Indiana Supreme Court
Keith M. Ramsey, M.D., The Methodist Hospitals, Inc. v. Shella Moore
45S05-1105-CT-281
Civil tort. Holds that because the trial court’s order dismissing the portion of Moore’s proposed complaint dealing with the death of the fetus but refusing to dismiss her complaint in its entirety based on the lateness of her submission is not a final appealable judgment, there is no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The trial court order did not dispose of all the claims as to all parties.

Thomas Dexter v. State of Indiana
79S05-1106-CR-367
Criminal. Reverses Dexter’s habitual-offender sentencing enhancement and holds that an unsigned judgment is not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the fact of a prior conviction. Holds that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment doesn’t bar the state from retrying Dexter on the habitual offender enhancement. Summarily affirms the Indiana Court of Appeals in all other respects.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jason Quinn v. Accurate Builders (NFP)
93A02-1108-EX-698
Agency appeal. Affirms decision of the Full Worker’s Compensation Board denying application for adjustment of claim.

Robert Weybright v. Kathy Weybright n/k/a Kathy Scaggs (NFP)
43A03-1105-DR-191
Domestic relation. Affirms determination that Kathy Weybright was not in contempt of a court order, that Robert Weybright maintain health insurance for the parties’ minor daughter, and that Kathy retain sole custody of the daughter. Remands for the court to modify its order so that Robert isn’t required to reimburse Kathy for certain bills.

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. 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