ILNews

Opinions July 23, 2014

July 23, 2014
Keywords
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
13-2368
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
82A05-1401-CR-34
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.
79A04-1310-CT-521
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)
02A03-1310-CR-428
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Joseph Chadwick Cole v. State of Indiana (NFP)
69A05-1402-CR-92
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)
02A04-1312-JT-646
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating parental rights.

Freemond Jordan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1310-CR-540
Criminal. Affirms convictions of murder and Class B felony attempted robbery.

Walter J. Bramage v. Discover Bank (NFP)
45A04-1312-CC-636
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Discover Bank.

David Jastrzembski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1312-CR-481
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony check fraud.

Joseph R. Mosley v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1312-CR-530
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to 23 counts of Class D felony theft.

Shannon Goodman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1401-CR-5
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)
08A05-1309-CC-466
Civil collection. Affirms claim of breach of contract to sell residential real estate against the Trustys.

Delvon Tolbert v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1310-CR-564
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony forgery.

Adam Taylor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1311-CR-566
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.
 

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT