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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT