Opinions June 10, 2013

June 10, 2013
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Javier Munoz
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Larry J. McKinney.
Criminal. Affirms 181-month sentence following a guilty plea in 2007 to distributing and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. Munoz materially breached the conditions of his release and an implied term of the plea agreement by fleeing the country rather than showing up for sentencing. His breach allowed the government to treat the plea agreement as having been rescinded.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Maurice Frazier v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies sexual battery, criminal confinement and official misconduct. Reverses and remands for a second Class D felony conviction of sexual battery to be reduced to Class A misdemeanor battery because the state failed to prove compulsion by force or imminent threat of force. Finds convictions do not violate double jeopardy principles.

In the Matter of the Adoption of J.T.A.; R.S.P. v. S.S.
Adoption. Affirms denial of R.S.P.’s petition to adopt J.T.A. The trial court was mistaken in believing that the father’s parental rights would have been terminated if the petition was granted, but there was nonetheless evidence to support the denial of the petition because the biological mother’s consent was required.  

Flaherty & Collins, Inc. v. BBR-Vision I, L.P., and New Castle Realty, LLC
Civil plenary. Reverses trial court’s interpretation that Section 12(a) of the management agreement between F&C and BBR requires F&C to pay attorney fees for first-party actions. The language of Section 12(a) does not create an exception to the general rule that an indemnity clause creates liability to pay only for third-party actions. The trial court erred in making findings that effectively granted summary judgment to BBR and NCR on the issue of whether they could recover damages under the Crime Victims Statute because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a F&C employee’s action or BBR’s and NCR’s inaction caused any pecuniary loss to BBR and NCR. Reverses what was effectively summary judgment on the issue of whether F&C committed deception. Affirms determination that NCR has standing as a third-party beneficiary to assert its claims in this action. Remands for further proceedings.

Marrco Antonio Martinez v. State of Indiana (NFP)  
Criminal. Affirms 35-year sentence for two counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Carol Miller v. State of Indiana (NFP)  
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor pointing a firearm.

In Re The Paternity of: H.N.L.; C.L. v. B.A. (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms order in paternity action adjudicating issues regarding custody, parenting time, child support and attorney fees.

Clifton T. Massey v. Reana Beard (NFP)  
Small claim. Affirms order awarding $4,240 to Beard in a landlord/tenant dispute.

In the Matter of the Invol. Term. of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.M.K. and A.O.K., minor children, and T.D., biological father, T.D. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
Juvenile. Affirms order denying father’s motion to withdraw his voluntary consent to the termination of his parental rights.

James Brock Rodgers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.

Vassil Marinov v. Bergen Car Company Inc. (NFP)  
Small claim. Dismisses appeal of judgment in favor of Bergen Car Company on Marinov’s claim for damages.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?