ILNews

Opinions July 17, 2014

July 17, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
United States of America v. Lorenzo Mosley
13-3184
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge James T. Moody.
Criminal. Affirms revocation of Mosley’s supervised release after judge found Mosley had committed the alleged violations, which included dealing cocaine, and sentence to 21 months in prison. The District Court erred in admitting a hearsay statement without finding there was “good cause,” but the error was harmless.

Thursday’s opinions
Indiana Supreme Court

Gayle Fischer v. Michael and Noel Heymann
49S02-1309-PL-620
Civil plenary. Affirms the award of damages and attorney fees to Fischer after the Heymanns broke their contract to purchase her condo. Affirms the trial court’s refusal to find that Fischer’s only reasonable option to mitigate her damages was to respond to the Heymanns’ demands. The trial court did not err in finding that Fischer should have mitigated her damages by selling the condo for $240,000 in February 2007.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Todd DeWayne Kelly v. State of Indiana
41A01-1311-CR-519
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. The state presented clear evidence that Kelly indirectly communicated with his ex-wife, who had a protective order against Kelly, when he sent a text to their daughter, who showed it to her mother.

Clyde Davis v. State of Indiana
49A02-1311-CR-938
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. There is no evidence Davis was in danger – past or present – at the time of his arrest and the state’s argument that he was in danger of being struck by a car was speculative.

Moran Electric Service, Inc., and Threaded Rod Company, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, City of Indianapolis, Ertel Manufacturing Corp.
49A02-1305-MI-432
Miscellaneous/Rehearing. Affirms original opinion in all respects. The original opinion did not misinterpret the trial court’s role in the environmental action involving Moran, Threaded Rod and Ertel with regard to disbursement of escrowed funds. IDEM cannot perform remedial actions and obtain damages from a party through an administrative order – it must go to court to obtain those.

Carlin Graffenread v. State of Indiana
49A05-1310-CR-499
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to defer dealing in marijuana charge. The language of Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-12 is clear and unambiguous on its face and does not run afoul of double jeopardy or collateral estoppels protections.

Joseph M. Bell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1311-CR-464
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted dealing in methamphetamine.

Phyllis Roy v. Jerry Gidrewicz (NFP)
45A03-1306-PO-263
Protective order. Affirms trial court’s denial of Roy’s motion to correct error.

Kenneth Ferrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1311-CR-567
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony residential entry.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions Thursday by 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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT