ILNews

Opinions July 30, 2010

July 30, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Anthony L. Vaughn
09-3789
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney.
Criminal. Affirms 180-month sentence after pleading guilty to committing aggravated assault on a federal officer. The District Court reasonably explained why the sentence that was outside the guidelines range was appropriate.

Christopher Parish, et al. v. City of Elkhart, et al.
09-2056
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Rudy Lozano.
Civil. Reverses dismissal of his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Under Indiana’s adoption of Heck, Parish could not have brought these claims until his conviction was disposed of in a manner favorable to him. Parish brought his claim within two years of when the claim accrued upon his exoneration, thereby making the claim timely. Affirms dismissal of false arrest and false imprisonment claims.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert L. Gosha v. State of Indiana
48A02-0912-CR-1210
Criminal. Reverses denial of motion to correct error. Gosha was denied the right to due process when his participation in a Drug Court Program was ended without the court first affording him notice of a hearing and the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses at that hearing. Remands with instructions.

William Foster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-0908-CR-435
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony neglect of a dependent and Class C felony reckless homicide.

In the matter of the marriage of : L.S. v. J.H. (NFP)
41A04-0910-CV-605
Civil. Reverses trial court order that ordered father is not required to enroll C.H. in gymnastics during his extended summer parenting time in Indiana or contribute to the expenses associated with gymnastics. Remands with further instructions. Affirms decree of modification in all other respects.

Christopher W. Hovis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A03-0910-CR-487
Criminal. Dismisses belated appeal of convictions of and sentence for Class C felony assisting a criminal and a habitual offender enhancement.

Geronimo Montalvo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
http://media.ibj.com/Lawyer/websites/opinions/index.php?pdf=07301001lmb.pdf
12A05-0910-CR-597
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at 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