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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT