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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT