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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT