Opinions - June 8, 2010

June 9, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Mario Arita-Campos

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Chief Judge Philip P. Simon.
Criminal. Denies motion to dismiss Arita-Campos’ 2005 indictment of re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1326(a). He cannot establish any of the elements required under the section to collaterally attack the deportation order underlying the offense.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Aaron D. Norman, Sr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief and motion to correct error.

Andre Powell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Eugene L. Echols v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class A felony child molesting.

Dave Huckaby v. Jasper County Sheriff's Office (NFP)
Civil. Affirms grant of Jasper County Sheriff’s Office’s motion to dismiss Huckaby’s complaint pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6).

Lance Douglas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Vacates Douglas’ conviction of Class A felony robbery and remands with instructions to enter it as a Class B felony. Remands for the trial court to re-sentence him to 20 years, the statutory maximum for Class B felony robbery and that it’s served concurrently with his Class A felony attempted burglary conviction but consecutively with his felony murder sentence.

Christopher Hickey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony burglary but reverses and remands with regard to the restitution order.  

James Cashman v. The Gables at Brighton Point, HOA (NFP)

Civil. Reverses award of $89.11 to The Gables against Cashman and remands that it be vacated. Affirms all other aspects of the judgment in favor of The Gables in their suit for past dues and Cashman’s counterclaim for violating the Fair Debt Collect Act and failing to prove the validity of the disputed finance charges and late fees.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.