ILNews

Opinions July 26, 2010

July 26, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Mark Ciesiolka
09-2787
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Rudy Lozano.
Criminal. Reverses conviction of knowingly attempting to persuade, induce, entice, and coerce a minor to engage in sexual activity. Because the District Court failed to explain its ruling that the four-factor test for introducing evidence of prior acts under Rule 404(b) was satisfied, and since the evidence introduced in unconstrained fashion is perhaps excessively prejudicial in light of its probative value, reverses and remands for a new trial. Judge Ripple dissents.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Brian D. Brough
88A01-0911-CV-550
Civil. Reverses trial court order granting Brough’s request to vacate order for arbitration. Brough’s contractual obligation to arbitrate his Fair Credit Reporting Act claim against Green Tree was not invalidated by his bankruptcy discharge. Brough’s bankruptcy proceeding has ended, so arbitration of his FCRA claim will not jeopardize the bankruptcy case or affect Brough’s bankruptcy discharge. The contract’s arbitration clause was not terminated by Brough’s bankruptcy discharge. Remands with instructions to order the parties to arbitrate Brough’s FCRA claim.

Leonard Townsend Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1004-PC-251
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

B.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1002-JV-58
Juvenile. Affirms B.H.’s placement at the Department of Correction.

A.T.J. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-0912-JV-582
Juvenile. Affirms order A.T.J. be placed in the custody of the Department of Correction.

Frank W. Jackson III v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-0907-CR-303
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

A.B., Alleged to be C.H.I.N.S.; K.J. v. I.D.C.S. and Child Advocates (NFP)
49A02-1001-JC-35
Juvenile CHINS. Affirms finding A.B. is a child in need of services.


Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court didn’t grant any transfers for the week ending July 23.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT