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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT