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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT