ILNews

Opinions Nov. 7, 2011

November 7, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Jessica J. Jelinek v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
10-3340
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein.
Civil. Reverses judgment of an administrative law judge that Jelinek’s collective mental and physical impairments were severe but not disabling. Reverses and remands for further proceedings on mother’s request for supplemental security income for daughter.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Edward J. Dixey v. State of Indiana
82A05-1104-CR-172
Criminal. Reverses theft conviction for Dixey and orders new trial, holding that Dixey should have been allowed to argue in closing arguments that the state failed to prove he committed theft, but may have proved a lesser claim.

Quintico Goolsby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1105-CR-396
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

David Burks-Bey v. Tippecanoe County Jail, et al. (NFP)
79A02-1101-MI-149
Miscellaneous. Affirms trial court’s dismissal of complaint for failure to prosecute, holding Burks-Bey put forth no reason for failing to pursue his case during two-plus years of inactivity.

Samuel L. Hobbs, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1101-PC-46
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

James Henry LaFramboise v. State of Indiana (NFP)
16A05-1104-CR-220
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony voluntary manslaughter.

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT