ILNews

Opinions March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Peggy Abner and Linda Kendall v. Scott Memorial Hospital
10-2713
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Chief Judge Richard L. Young.
Civil. Denies motion to file an oversized brief and affirms summary judgment for Scott Memorial Hospital in a suit under the False Claims Act. Finds the appeal has no merit and the appellant’s attorney flagrantly violated the word limit for the brief.

United States of America v. Styles Taylor and Keon Thomas
05-2007, 05-2008, 09-1291
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr.
Criminal. Vacates Taylor and Thomas’ convictions of murder and robbery and remands for a new trial. Accepting new, unrelated reasons extending well beyond the prosecutor’s original justification for striking an African-American juror amounts to clear error under Miller-El II, and the government’s reliance on these additional reasons raises the specter of pretext.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
David Sasser v. State of Indiana
79A04-1006-CR-457
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class C felony failure to register as a convicted sex offender while having a prior conviction and remands for a new trial. The admission of evidence regarding Sasser’s prior convictions for failure to register was a fundamental error, but there is sufficient evidence supporting the conviction.

Jerrell D. White v. State of Indiana
15A01-1008-CR-463
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and reverses conviction of Class D felony receiving stolen property for violating double jeopardy. There is insufficient evidence to support the habitual offender finding. Affirms remaining three-year sentence for theft conviction. Remands with instructions.

Thomas P. Burke v. American General Financial Services, Inc. (NFP)
29A02-1008-PL-925
Civil plenary. Affirms on interlocutory appeal the grant of a motion to appoint a receiver filed by American General Financial Services.

Joshua Murrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1005-CR-552
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of the denial of demand for trial setting and motion to transport defendant to Marion County Jail for purpose of trial preparation or competency evaluation, and motion for discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C).

James D. Imel, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A01-1009-CR-471
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class C felony reckless homicide.

William C. Lansford v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1004-CR-178
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT