Opinions May 31, 2012

May 31, 2012
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
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
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)
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony sexual battery.

Anthony Stansbury v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms order modifying custody of N.B. to father.

In Re the Marriage of: Alexander Nikolayev v. Natalia Nikolayev (NFP)
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)
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)
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)
Juvenile. Dismisses sua sponte the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Dusty E. Rhodes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.