ILNews

Opinions March 18, 2011

March 18, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Dennis Jamison
10-1515
United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Criminal. Affirms Jamison’s conviction of possessing a sawed-off shotgun, in violation of 26 U.S.C. sections 5861(d) and 5845(a). During his trial, the district court permitted the government to elicit testimony from Jamison’s wife on cross-examination regarding Jamison’s aggressiveness. Jamison appeals his conviction, arguing that the question and his wife’s response were irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, unduly cumulative, and lacked foundation. The government claims that the evidence demonstrated Mrs. Jamison’s bias and motive to lie.

The Indiana Supreme Court posted no opinions before IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Clinton County, et al. v. Jacqueline R. Clements, et al.
54A01-1008-PL-407
Civil. Affirms trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Clements on her claim for immunity under Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3. Concludes the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Clements’ motion for reimbursement of attorney fees under Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-5(e). Remands for a calculation of attorney fees owed to Clements.

Kimberly Devlin v. Daniel L. Peyton
49A02-1008-DR-902
Domestic relation. Affirms dissolution court’s ruling regarding Peyton’s (father) parenting time, which was not disputed by Devlin (mother). Vacates dissolution court’s findings and conclusions regarding adoption proceedings that were pending in adoption court. Mother appealed the dissolution court’s conclusion that it had jurisdiction to address the adoption question and that she failed to establish that father’s consent to the adoption was not required.

Annette (Oliver) Hirsch v. Roger Lee Oliver
29A02-1004-DR-429
Domestic relation. Reverses trial court’s emancipation date of Sept. 23, 2009, for daughter born in May 1990, and concludes she was emancipated no earlier than Dec. 10, 2009. Remands for trial court to recalculate the amount of child support father has overpaid, and to apportion the payment of uninsured medical expenses incurred by two of the parties’ daughters in 2009, in accordance with this opinion. Also remands for entry of a post-secondary education expense order as to father. Finally, reverses award to father of attorney fees and his current wife’s travel expenses.

Ryan Michael Bodnar v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1010-CR-518
Criminal. Affirms conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of Class A felony dealing in narcotics.

The Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions before 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. 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