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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT