ILNews

Opinions March 7, 2011

March 7, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Martin Avila
09-2681
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge David F. Hamilton.
Criminal. Affirms 365-month sentence for drug offenses following re-sentencing on remand. The District Court corrected the drug quantity attributable to Avila. The District Court did not violate the cross-appeal rule and acted within the scope of the remand.

United States of America v. William Travis Brown
09-3976
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Chief Judge David F. Hamilton.
Criminal. Affirms 240-month sentence for one count of possession of child pornography and one count of transportation of child pornography. Application of the “thing of value” enhancement was not double counting. The District Court properly based Brown’s sentence on the Section 3553(a) sentencing guidelines.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jill M. Baird v. Lake Santee Regional Waste and Water District (NFP)
16A01-1009-CC-470
Civil collections. Affirms denial of Baird’s motion for relief from judgment granting a foreclosure decree against her property in favor of Lake Santee Regional Waste and Water District for her failure to pay sewer connection penalties.

Desmond D. Clayton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1006-CR-363
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony robbery and Class A misdemeanor battery.

Ricky Renee Patterson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1007-PC-894
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Thomas William Donaldson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1007-CR-763
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Carl Sonnenberg, et al. v. A.N. Real Estate Services, Inc., et al. (NFP)
29A04-1005-PL-381
Civil plenary. Affirms determination that the Sonnenbergs are only entitled to $650 in damages in a lawsuit against A.N. Real Estate Services and employee Natalie Higgens pursuant to the Home Loan Practices Act for an erroneous appraisal of their home.

Seth R. Adkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1010-CR-569
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer to 16 cases for the week ending March 4.
 

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT