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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT