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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT