ILNews

Opinions July 11, 2013

July 11, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Danny Harmon
12-1502
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Affirms convictions of marijuana conspiracy and related offenses and 360-month sentence. A trial continuance did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and the disclosure of Harmon’s prior drug conviction did not deprive him of a fair trial. The court did not make a mistake in finding Harmon responsible for more than 10,000 kilograms of marijuana.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Lindsay Tatusko v. State of Indiana
29A04-1208-CR-413
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony forgery and Class D felony theft. Tatusko’s electronic alteration of an authorized tip amount constitutes forgery. She also hasn’t shown she was denied effective assistance of trial counsel.

Kenneth Smith v. State of Indiana

49A02-1212-CR-1017
Criminal. Affirms order Smith pay $1,380 in restitution to William Kirkham. The trial court did not err when it allowed the state to present evidence at the restitution hearing of the victim’s actual loss that was not presented during Smith’s theft trial. The trial court also inquired into Smith’s ability to pay restitution.

In the Matter of the Paternity and Maternity of Infant T.
67A05-1301-JP-36
Juvenile. Reverses denial of father M.F.’s request to establish paternity and affirms the denial of surrogate M.F.’s petition to disestablish maternity. Her request is not cognizable so the trial court properly denied it. Indiana law presumes the birth mother is the child’s biological mother. Remands for the trial court to enter an order establishing M.F.’s paternity.

Robert M. Gates v. City of Indianapolis
49A04-1210-OV-503
Ordinance violation. Reverses denial of Gates’ request for a jury trial on three municipal ordinances the city alleges Gates violated. The nature of the underlying substantive claims brought against him is quasi-criminal, and he is entitled to a jury trial under Article I, Section 20 of the Indiana Constitution. Remands with instructions to grant the jury trial request.

Paul Monet Fontaine v. State of Indiana (NFP)

45A03-1211-CR-476
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class C felony forgery.

Cecilia Kelly v. GEPA Hotel Owner Indianapolis LLC, GEPA Hotel Operator Indianapolis LLC, and Schindler Elevator Corporation (NFP)
49A04-1210-CT-509
Civil tort. Reverses grant of summary judgment in favor of GEPA Hotel Owners Indianapolis, GEPA Hotel Operator and Schindler Elevator Corp. on Kelly’s negligence lawsuit.

David L. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)

46A04-1212-PC-639
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Dana L. Smith v. James L. Smith (NFP
)
49A05-1210-DR-554
Domestic relation. Affirms order denying Dana Smith’s motion to correct error following the entry of the decree dissolving the Smiths’ marriage. Remands with instructions for the trial court to add an exhibit nunc pro tunc and to redistribute the decree to the parties.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT