ILNews

Opinions May 31, 2012

May 31, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Aaron M. Davis, Bobby Suggs, et al.
11-1313, 11-1323, et al.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge James T. Moody.
Criminal. In consolidated appeal, affirms denial of the six defendants’ motion to reduce their sentences pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(2) based on the retroactive crack cocaine amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The District Court did not have the power to adjudicate Suggs’ motion and lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. There is sufficient evidence for the District Court to conclude the other defendants were responsible for at least 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine, which would prevent their sentences from being reduced.

Indiana Supreme Court
Mickey Cundiff v. State of Indiana
31S05-1108-CR-512
Criminal. Affirms denial of Cundiff’s motion for a speedy trial. Criminal Rule 4(B) is available only to a defendant when the defendant is held on the pending charges for which he or she requests a speedy trial.
 
Indiana Court of Appeals
Fred N. Martinez v. Susan K. Deeter
32A01-1108-DR-359
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Deeter’s request for attorney fees. Holds trial court erred by making conflicting findings regarding Martinez’s 2007 child support and by including survivor benefits received by the children in the calculation of Deeter’s weekly gross income. Remands for court to recalculate father’s 2007 child support obligation and further proceedings.

Larry Gene Gore v. State of Indiana (NFP)
76A03-1110-CR-491
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony sexual battery.

Anthony Stansbury v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1111-CR-585
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies attempted robbery and aggravated battery and finding Stansbury is a habitual offender and remands for correction of sentencing order.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Castalia Homes, LLC; Jan N. Kelsey (NFP)
06A04-1112-MF-680
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses summary judgment in favor of Castalia Homes on the issue of priority.

Noblesville Schools Corporation v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Ryan Shelton (NFP)
93A02-1110-EX-923
Agency appeal. Affirms decision by review board that Noblesville Schools Corp. did not show good cause for failing to attend a hearing review regarding Shelton’s award of benefits.

In Re the Paternity of N.B.; K.B. v. A.B. (NFP)
45A03-1111-JP-495
Juvenile. Affirms order modifying custody of N.B. to father.

In Re the Marriage of: Alexander Nikolayev v. Natalia Nikolayev (NFP)
49A05-1108-DR-393
Domestic relation. Reverses decision to make Alexander Nikolayev’s new child support obligation effective July 21, 2010. Affirms in all other respects and remands for further proceedings.

Jeffrey Riggs and Mark Ashmann v. Mark S. Weinberger, M.D., Mark Weinberger, M.D., P.C., Merrillville Center for Advanced Surgery, LLC, and Nose and Sinus Center, LLC (NFP)
45A03-1109-CT-394
Civil tort. Affirms grant of a motion for Trial Rule 35 psychological examination filed by Weinberger. Remands for further proceedings.

Susan Grund v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A02-1108-PC-791
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

In the Matter of V.C., Child Alleged to be in Need of Services: V.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1201-JC-43
Juvenile. Dismisses sua sponte the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Dusty E. Rhodes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
11A01-1109-CR-487
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine.

Richard C. Gallops and Patricia A. Gallops v. David Hubbard, Personal Representative of the Estate of Thelma M. Hubbard, Deceased (NFP)
02A05-1107-CT-337
Civil tort. Denies the estate’s renewed motion to dismiss and affirms the Gallopses’ designated materials were inadmissible under the Dead Man’s Statute and that the estate was entitled to partial summary judgment as a matter of law.

Indiana Tax Court 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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT