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
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