ILNews

Opinions June 21, 2011

June 21, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of American v. Donella Locke
10-1351.
Criminal. Affirms convictions on five counts of wire fraud. Vacates Donella Locke’s 71-month sentence and restitution order and remands for resentencing proceedings, holding that the length of the sentence and amount of restitution were based in part on conduct not necessarily encompassed in the charges of conviction. Also holds that the court erred in ordering Locke to pay restitution to victims not clearly harmed by the conduct in Locke’s counts of conviction.

Indiana Supreme Court
Misty D. Davis v. Animal Control - City of Evansville, et al.
82S01-1102-CV-77
Civil. Affirms trial court’s finding that the city defendants were entitled to “law enforcement immunity” under the Indiana Tort Claims Act, and cannot be held liable for a dog attacking Misty Davis’ son.

Michael Ashby and Randy O'Brien v. The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Co., and C. Bruce Davidson, Jr.
49S04-1011-CV-635
Civil. Reverses summary judgment in favor of an insurance company for claims brought against the company after the insured – C. Bruce Davidson Jr. – abandoned his law practice, was disbarred, and did not report the claims to the company.

Gibraltar Financial Corp. v. Prestige Equipment Corp., National Machinery Exchange, Inc., et al.
20S03-1010-CV-618
Civil. Reverses trial court’s summary judgment on behalf of the defendants, stating that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the equipment in question was leased. The court held that the language of an agreement between the now-defunct Vitco company and General Finance could be interpreted to be either a lease or a sale subject to security interest. Remands to court for proceedings consistent with opinion.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Victor J. DiMaggio, III v. Elias Rosario, et al.
64A03-1009-PL-500
Civil plenary. Affirms court’s order dismissing Victor DiMaggio’s complaint for usurpation of a corporate opportunity against Liberty Lake Estates, holding DiMaggio failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and failed to prove that Elias Rosario, et al., knowingly or intentionally usurped corporate opportunity.

Darrell Farmer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1007-CR-772
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s denial of motion for a mistrial, holding that Darrell Farmer failed to establish bias or prejudice.

Donnett Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1011-CR-1244
Criminal. Affirms convictions of battery and public intoxication, both Class B misdemeanors.

Andre White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1009-PC-616
Post-conviction relief petition. Affirms court’s denial of post-conviction relief petition.

Raymond Cain v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1011-CR-605
Criminal. Affirms six-year sentence with two years suspended to probation for Class C felony child exploitation.

Latoya Duncan v. State of Indiana (NFP)
22A01-1007-CR-365
Criminal. Reverses sentence of eight years with two years suspended to probation, following guilty plea to Class B felony dealing in cocaine, holding that Latoya Duncan’s lack of criminal background and character make her a good candidate for probation. Remands with instructions to vacate sentence and re-sentence consistent with appeals court’s opinion.

Demarcus Verse v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1012-CR-628
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony strangulation and related charges.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.M.; E.M. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
46A03-1012-JT-676
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of father’s parental rights.

James C. Ritenour, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
75A03-1009-CR-512
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class C felony attempted battery.

Eric M. Schuler v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1009-CR-1063
Criminal. Affirms court’s order revoking probation and imposing four years of previously suspended sentence.

Steven Connors v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1011-CR-776
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony arson.

Tommie Rivers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1011-CR-763
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended.

Phillip D. Laster v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1011-CR-727
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony domestic battery and remands with instructions to vacate “consecutive” sentence for habitual offender adjudication and to attach the enhanced sentence to the domestic battery sentence.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions as of 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