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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT