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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT