ILNews

Opinions June 3, 2013

June 3, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jeffrey Weaver
12-3324
Criminal. Vacates judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and remands for resentencing. Weaver was sentenced to 235 months imprisonment after the District Court determined his sentence should be enhanced because he was functioning as a manager/supervisor in supplying methamphetamine to two buyers and pressuring them to sell the drugs. The Circuit Court found his actions did not rise to the 3-level enhancement because he did not have the control necessary to coerce the buyers. Instead Weaver was encouraging behavior that would protect his investment and insure payment of the debt owed to him.  

The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Friday.
SAMS Hotel Group, LLC v. Environs, Inc.
12-2979
Civil. Affirms judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana that SAMS Hotel Group’s damages were limited to $70,000. The hotel group sued Environs for breach of contract after the hotel that Environs designed was found to have serious structural flaws and had to be demolished before being opened. SAMS argued its damages should exceed the limitation of liability provision in the contract because the language of the contract did not refer explicitly to Environs’ own negligence. Finding no indication in Indiana case law that the Indiana Supreme Court would extend the specificity rule to a limitation of liability clause that was knowingly negotiated by two sophisticated commercial entities, the Circuit Court concluded the district court properly held SAMS to the terms of its contract.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Bryant E. Wilson v. State of Indiana
27A02-1212-CR-1012
Criminal. Affirms in a divided opinion trial court denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence for convictions of Class A felony rape and criminal deviate conduct and Class B felony robbery. Judges Terry Crone and Ezra Friedlander affirmed the trial court’s denial, holding the aggregate sentence of 50 years in prison that included a partial consecutive sentence on the lesser count was not erroneous on its face. Chief Judge Margret Robb would reverse the denial, writing in dissent that she believed the sentence was erroneous because the partial consecutive sentence was not explicitly permitted by statute.

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

 

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