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. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?