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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT