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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

  2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

  3. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  4. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  5. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

ADVERTISEMENT