ILNews

Opinions Nov. 29, 2010

November 29, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
American Bank v. City of Menasha, et al.
10-1963
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Civil. Reverses judgment granting a stay requested by Menasha to give American Bank certain records available pursuant to Wisconsin’s Public Records Law. The bank, a plaintiff in a class-action suit charging the city violated federal securities law, requested the documents after the suit was filed. The stay is not a stay of a discovery order and can only be an injunction; only a stay of discovery is authorized by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.

Louquetta O’Connor-Spinner v. Michael Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
09-4083
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Judge David F. Hamilton.
Civil. The administrative law judge’s hypothetical did not supply the vocational expert with information adequate to determine whether O’Connor-Spinner could perform jobs in the national economy. The ALJ also did not address potentially important evidence that she has difficulty taking instructions and responding appropriately to supervisors. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Donnie Salyer v. State of Indiana
75A05-1003-CR-164
Criminal. Affirms denial of Salyer’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his residence. The incorrect address information on the warrant did not invalidate it because the executing officer knew the precise location of Salyer’s home, prepared the search warrant and accompanying affidavit, and executed the search warrant.

Walker Whatley v. State of Indiana
49A02-1007-CR-839
Criminal. Affirms dismissal of motion for re-trial under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B). Based upon Whatley’s motion and the dates of his attached documents, he didn’t demonstrate that the alleged newly discovered evidence could not have been discovered by due diligence in time for him to move for a motion to correct error under Rule 59.

S.D. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1004-JV-442
Juvenile. Reverses adjudication for what would be Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult. The juvenile court erred by admitting S.D.’s confession because he had not been given meaningful consultation with his guardian as required by Indiana’s juvenile waiver of rights statute.

John D. Hemmings v. State of Indiana (NFP)
63A01-1003-CR-162
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

John V. Guthrie, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1003-CR-166
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting and Class C felony child molesting.

James M. Sampson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1003-CR-355
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony residential entry.

Rafael A. DeJesus v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1002-CR-95
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

Michael Nuckols v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1002-CR-202
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

Travis W. Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A04-1006-CR-398
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of validity of guilty plea to Class D felony stalking and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Bruce D. Seal v. Lori L. Seal (NFP)
48A04-0912-DR-750
Domestic relation. Affirms awarding attorney’s fees to Lori but reverses awarding a pension plan solely to Lori. Remands for further proceedings.

Paternity of F.B.; P.B. v. J.M. (NFP)
55A04-1006-JP-360
Juvenile. Reverses finding that P.B. was in contempt and remands with instructions to vacate its original order in this regard. Affirms modified support order reducing his support obligation to $54 per week. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imputing a $400 a week income to the father based on his previous income of $470 a week.

Cody Lewellen and Cody Dallas v. Brandon Cessna (NFP)
80A05-1005-CT-330
Civil tort. Affirms denial of Lewellen’s Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) motion to set aside default judgment in a personal injury action filed by Cessna.

Eric Hall v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1003-CR-244
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Indiana Tax Court had 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. Bill Satterlee is, indeed, a true jazz aficionado. Part of my legal career was spent as an associate attorney with Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans in Valparaiso. Bill was instrumental (no pun intended) in introducing me to jazz music, thereby fostering my love for this genre. We would, occasionally, travel to Chicago on weekends and sit in on some outstanding jazz sessions at Andy's on Hubbard Street. Had it not been for Bill's love of jazz music, I never would have had the good fortune of hearing it played live at Andy's. And, most likely, I might never have begun listening to it as much as I do. Thanks, Bill.

  2. The child support award is many times what the custodial parent earns, and exceeds the actual costs of providing for the children's needs. My fiance and I have agreed that if we divorce, that the children will be provided for using a shared checking account like this one(http://www.mediate.com/articles/if_they_can_do_parenting_plans.cfm) to avoid the hidden alimony in Indiana's child support guidelines.

  3. Fiat justitia ruat caelum is a Latin legal phrase, meaning "Let justice be done though the heavens fall." The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences.

  4. Indiana up holds this behavior. the state police know they got it made.

  5. Additional Points: -Civility in the profession: Treating others with respect will not only move others to respect you, it will show a shared respect for the legal system we are all sworn to protect. When attorneys engage in unnecessary personal attacks, they lose the respect and favor of judges, jurors, the person being attacked, and others witnessing or reading the communication. It's not always easy to put anger aside, but if you don't, you will lose respect, credibility, cases, clients & jobs or job opportunities. -Read Rule 22 of the Admission & Discipline Rules. Capture that spirit and apply those principles in your daily work. -Strive to represent clients in a manner that communicates the importance you place on the legal matter you're privileged to handle for them. -There are good lawyers of all ages, but no one is perfect. Older lawyers can learn valuable skills from younger lawyers who tend to be more adept with new technologies that can improve work quality and speed. Older lawyers have already tackled more legal issues and worked through more of the problems encountered when representing clients on various types of legal matters. If there's mutual respect and a willingness to learn from each other, it will help make both attorneys better lawyers. -Erosion of the public trust in lawyers wears down public confidence in the rule of law. Always keep your duty to the profession in mind. -You can learn so much by asking questions & actively listening to instructions and advice from more experienced attorneys, regardless of how many years or decades you've each practiced law. Don't miss out on that chance.

ADVERTISEMENT