Opinions March 9, 2020

  • 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
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Robert Holleman v. Dushan Zatecky
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. Judge James R. Sweeney II.
Civil. Affirms the Southern District Court’s grant of summary judgment to Zatecky in response to Robert Holleman’s First Amendment lawsuit after his transfer from Pendleton Correctional Facility. Despite Holleman’s multitudinous lawsuits, grievances, and an interview he provided to a local newspaper about the conditions at Pendleton, finds his transfer was not retaliation.

United States of America v. James A. Simon
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Criminal. Affirms the district court’s denial of James Simon’s motions to reconsider amendments to his restitution obligations. Finds most of the challenges could have and should have been raised at sentencing or on direct appeal and the remainder are untimely.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Judith A. Hallie
Mortgage foreclosure. Reverses on interlocutory appeal the Lake Superior Court’s order granting judgment on the evidence in favor of Judith Hallie on Wells Fargo’s foreclosure suit. The trial court erred by establishing a heightened personal knowledge requirement for proffered exhibits. Remands with instructions to permit Wells Fargo to proffer exhibits consistent with the Indiana Rules of Evidence.

In Re the Adoption of: S.A.C., Minor Child, M.M. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
Adoption. Dismisses M.M.’s appeal of the Allen Superior Court’s order denying his motion to supplement the record with newly discovered evidence in an adoption dispute. Finds no indication that M.M. sought certification from the trial court or permission from the Indiana Court of Appeals to file a discretionary interlocutory appeal, and that he has not stated a statutory right to appeal.

Daniel Cannon v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms Daniel Cannon’s six-year sentence for conviction of two counts of criminal recklessness resulting in death, as Level 5 felonies; three counts of criminal recklessness resulting in serious bodily injury, as Level 6 felonies; leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death, a Level 5 felony; and leaving the scene of an accident with serious bodily injury, a Level 6 felony. Finds sufficient evidence to support the convictions.

Leaha A. (Stepler) Fishbaugh v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms the Huntington Superior Court’s consideration of a material element of Leaha Fishbaugh’s crime as an aggravating circumstance and its non-consideration of her guilty plea as a mitigating circumstance. Finds that in sentencing, the trial court relied on a valid aggravating circumstance and did not abuse its discretion when it did not recognize Fishbaugh’s guilty plea to Level 3 felony dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug and Level 5 felony dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug as a significant mitigating circumstance.

David Alan Love v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Criminal. Affirms David Love’s 33-year sentences for each of his convictions of two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting by sexual intercourse and Level 1 felony child molesting by other sexual conduct, to run consecutively. Finds the prosecutor did not commit fundamental error in her closing argument, the Tippecanoe Circuit Court did not err when instructing the jury, and Love’s sentence is not inappropriate given the nature of his offenses and his character.

In re the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: J.P. (Minor Child), And S.P. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Juvenile termination. Affirms the termination of S.P.’s parental rights to her child, J.P. Finds mother’s due process rights were not infringed upon by the timing of the filing of the Department of Child Services’ petition to terminate her parental rights and that the evidence supported the Daviess Circuit Court’s order.

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 }}