Opinions July 23, 2014

July 23, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
United States of America v. Haitham Mohamed
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Reverses conviction of knowingly transporting and possessing contraband cigarettes. The District Court erred in denying Mohamed’s motions for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

Willie L. Montgomery v. State of Indiana
Criminal. On interlocutory appeal, rejects Montgomery’s challenge of the denial of his motion to dismiss a charge of failure to register as a sex or violent offender in Vanderburgh County because he has already been prosecuted for failing to register in Pike County. The charge in question is not barred under I.C. 35-34-1-4(a)(7) and does not violate double jeopardy principles. Remands for trial.

Joseph Laycock v. Joseph Sliwkowski, M.D.
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Sliwkowski on Laycock’s complaint that the doctor had a duty to see that Laycock obtained proper treatment.  The designated evidence does not establish a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of causation.

Briandre Q. Howard v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Joseph Chadwick Cole v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

In Re: the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: S.J. (Minor Child), And D.C. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating parental rights.

Freemond Jordan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class B felony attempted robbery.

Walter J. Bramage v. Discover Bank (NFP)
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Discover Bank.

David Jastrzembski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony check fraud.

Joseph R. Mosley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to 23 counts of Class D felony theft.

Shannon Goodman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony burglary resulting in bodily injury.

Adam Trusty and Brittany Trusty v. David L. Hood (NFP)
Civil collection. Affirms claim of breach of contract to sell residential real estate against the Trustys.

Delvon Tolbert v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony forgery.

Adam Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms denial of Taylor’s motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his vehicle and his sentence for Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Class D felony dealing in marijuana, Class D felony possession of a controlled substance and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?