ILNews

Opinions June 1, 2012

June 1, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had issued no opinions by IL deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Michael Sheneman
11-3161
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Jon E. DeGuilio.
Criminal. Affirms convictions and sentence for four counts of wire fraud in a two-year mortgage fraud scheme. Holds that Sheneman’s sentence enhancements were justified, due to the sophisticated means used to execute the fraud.

Indiana Court of Appeals
City of Elkhart, Indiana v. SFS, LLC and Jefferson Group, LLC
20A04-1104-MI-213
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s order rescinding its previous order that a tax deed be issued to the City of Elkhart, holding that because the city failed to provide adequate notice to the property owner, its tax deed is void.  

Richard Dean Martin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
10A05-1110-PC-526
Post conviction. Affirms convictions of six counts of Class A felony child molesting.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT