ILNews

Opinions March 20, 2014

March 20, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
United States of America v. Yulia Yurevna Abair
13-2498
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Jon E. DeGuilio
Criminal. Reverses conviction of violating a federal criminal statute that prohibits structuring currency transactions in order to evade federal reporting requirements for transactions involving more than $10,000 in currency. The government lacked a good-faith basis for believing that Bair lied on a tax return and financial aid forms, so the District Court erred by allowing the prosecutor to ask a series of accusatory and prejudicial questions about them under Fed. Rule of Ev. 608(b). Remands for a new trial. Judge Sykes dissents.

Thursday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Zachary Mulholland v. Marion County Election Board
13-3027
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Reverses dismissal of Mulholland’s lawsuit to enjoin Marion County Election Board proceedings relating to a slating violation and to enjoin the future enforcement of I.C. 3-14-1-2(a), the anti-slating law. The election board’s investigation is too preliminary a proceeding to warrant Younger abstention, at least in the wake of Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584 (2013). Even if Younger abstention were theoretically available after Sprint, the previous final federal judgment against the defendant Election Board holding the same statute facially unconstitutional would still amount to an extraordinary circumstance making Younger abstention inappropriate.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Kevin Moss v. State of Indiana
49A02-1307-CR-618
Criminal. Reverses denial of Moss’ motion to dismiss the enhancement to a Class C felony his charge of Class A misdemeanor possession of a handgun without a license due to a prior felony conviction that was later modified to a misdemeanor. Moss carried his burden of proving error because he had the prior felony reduced to a misdemeanor, so it could not support the enhancement.

Heritage Acceptance Corporation v. Chris L. Romine
71A03-1307-SC-283
Small claim. Affirms small claims court judgment in favor of Romine on Heritage Acceptance Corps.’ complaint to recover unpaid money owed on a car Romine financed. Under I.C. 26-1-2-102, the contract for payment of money is for a transaction of goods, so it is subject to the four-year statute of limitations. As such, Heritage’s complaint was not filed within that time frame.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: A.H. & J.H. (Minor Children), and D.T. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
82A04-1307-JT-378
Juvenile. Affirms order terminating father’s parental rights.

Dominique McClendon v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1307-CR-334
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class C felony possession of a narcotic drug while in possession of a firearm.

Michael W. Gilliland v. Fifth Third Mortgage Company (NFP)
81A01-1307-MF-314
Mortgage foreclosure. Affirms summary judgment for Fifth Third Mortgage Co. on its foreclosure complaint.

Charles Washington v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1308-CR-679
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony pointing a firearm, but reverses conviction of Class D felony criminal mischief. Remands for trial court to enter judgment of conviction and sentence for criminal mischief as a Class B misdemeanor.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by 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