Opinions June 7, 2022

Keywords Opinions
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline on Monday.

Luis H. Jaquez v. United States of America
21-1491
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.
Dismisses Luis Jaquez’s appeal of Magistrate Judge Michael Gotsch’s order for some of the pen register papers used in Jaquez’s case to be unsealed and the denial of his request to the extent that it sought additional information about the wiretaps. Finds that Jaquez’s appeal must be dismissed because a district judge did not enter the order and neither the district court nor the parties used the direct-appeal procedure allowed by §636(c). Finds the 7th Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction and authority to remand the proceeding to the district court or direct it to proceed in any particular way.

Tuesday opinions
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jermaine D. Marshall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

21A-CR-1557
Criminal. Affirms Jermaine Marshall’s aggregate three-year sentence with one year suspended to probation for conviction of Level 5 felony attempted robbery and his admittance to being a habitual offender. Concludes that Marshall’s waiver of a jury trial was knowing, voluntary and intelligent.

Linda D. Daugherty v. Casual Lifestyles Realty, Inc. and Rauleigh J. Ringer (mem. dec.)
21A-CT-2866
Civil tort. Affirms the granted motion to dismiss filed by Casual Lifestyles Realty, Inc. and Rauleigh J. Ringer against home renter Linda Daugherty. Finds the trial court did not err as a matter of law by granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute after Daugherty resumed prosecution of her case because Daugherty did not act until after the Defendant’s filed their motion to dismiss. Finds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to dismiss.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}