ILNews

Opinions July 6, 2012

July 6, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court released no opinions before IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. v. Justin Cephus, Jovan Stewart, and Stanton L. Cephus
10-3838, 10-3840, 11-1098
Criminal. Affirms in a case involving conspiracy to entice underage girls to engage in prostitution and transport them across state lines the life sentences without parole of multiple convictions for Justin and Stanton Cephus. The order remands to the trial court to enable the judge to reconcile a discrepancy in Stewart’s sentence of 324 months in federal prison. The judge said Stewart’s sentences were to be served consecutively; the written order indicates the sentences are concurrent.

U.S. v. Armando Mota
10-1486
Criminal. Affirms Mota’s conviction of attempting to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine and possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, holding that while a government agent failed to record and relay exculpatory evidence, Mota was not denied a fair trial because he learned of the evidence and presented it to the jury.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Charles Hazelbaker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
53A05-1111-CR-636
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction of Class C felony incest and determination of defendant as a habitual offender.

Santos C. Lopez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1109-CR-480
Criminal. Affirms trial court conviction of Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon.

In the Paternity of: A.R. & P.H., by Next Friend, Tammy Raab; Christopher Hall v. Tammy Raab (NFP)
49A05-1111-JP-577
Domestic relations/child support. Affirms trial court calculation of father’s child support payments to mother.

Alea London, Ltd. v. Richard Nagy, Jr., and Christopher Buckler (NFP)
45A05-1202-CT-83
Civil tort. Reverses and remands the trial court grant of summary judgment for Nagy and Butler and orders entry of summary judgment in favor of Alea London Ltd.

James Daher, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
56A03-1201-CR-32
Affirms trial court denial of motion for relief from judgment of conviction of Class B felony conspiracy to commit escape with a deadly weapon.
 

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT