Southern District court seeks applications to fill vacancy as Dinsmore announces retirement
U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore will retire effective Jan. 1, 2027, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana announced Monday.
To refine your search through our archives use our Advanced Search
U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore will retire effective Jan. 1, 2027, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana announced Monday.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Mark Landon Taylor v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2155
Criminal. Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court, Judge William J. Hughes. Affirms Taylor’s convictions and sentence for Class A misdemeanor domestic battery and Class A misdemeanor theft. Holds the trial court did not violate Taylor’s Sixth Amendment rights because the sentence imposed for domestic battery did not exceed the statutory maximum authorized by Indiana Code §§ 35-50-3-1 and 35-50-3-2, and thus Blakely does not apply. Further holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Taylor’s substance use was a contributing factor to the offense and sentencing him under Indiana Code § 35-50-3-1(c). Also holds the trial court did not err by imposing probationary terms without a substantiating report because Taylor received 365 days of probation on each misdemeanor conviction, and no single probationary term exceeded 12 months, making the statutory report requirement inapplicable. Rejects Taylor’s argument that the aggregate probationary period required a report and notes Taylor did not preserve a challenge to the consecutive nature of his sentences. Accordingly, affirms the judgment and sentence. Appellant’s attorney: Michael D. Frischkorn. Appellee’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
Progressive Democrats say they will not vote for even two weeks of Department of Homeland Security funding until Trump agrees to impose new limits on immigration raids.
Indiana legislators are advancing proposals that would tighten state laws on delta-8 products with THC and crack down on advertisements for marijuana dispensaries in neighboring states.
The complaint, filed last year, was an unusual move that showed how President Donald Trump and his allies have ramped up attacks against federal judges across the country for stopping, slowing or criticizing Trump’s signature initiatives.
All nine U.S. House and 100 Indiana House seats are up for election this year, along with half of the 50 Indiana Senate seats. The candidate filing period ends at noon Feb. 6.
Under Senate Bill 293, pharmacists would instead take continuing education courses to maintain their knowledge of current state laws and policies.
Last year presented organizations with a variety of new issues coupled with uncertainty. The year taught hard lessons and reinforced the critical need to adapt.
On Aug. 29, 2024, FinCEN published the rule with the start date for real estate transactions beginning March 1.
The Marion County Family Youth and Intervention Center, which opened last fall on the east side of Indianapolis, was created to divert juveniles from the justice system early by giving those in crisis a safe place to spend their time.
While coastal cities may dismiss us as flyover, we continue to produce the residents, workers, soldiers, athletes and executives who make the world run.
If judges are seen just like any other social adversary trying to fight others over an issue, then the public might be less likely to understand their true work as arbitrators and problem-solvers.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Lloyd N. Jelks v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-1971
Criminal. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge Amy M. Jones. Affirms Jelks’s conviction for refusal to provide identification information, a Class C misdemeanor. Holds the evidence was sufficient to prove Jelks knowingly or intentionally refused to identify himself to a law enforcement officer who had stopped him for an infraction, as required by Indiana Code § 34-28-5-3.5. Concludes the evidence showed Officer Reneski lawfully stopped Jelks for operating a vehicle with a fictitious license plate, repeatedly requested Jelks’s identification, and explained the consequences of refusal, yet Jelks persisted in refusing to provide his name, date of birth, address, or state identification despite possessing a valid Indiana identification card in his wallet. Further holds Jelks’s asserted belief that he was exercising constitutional rights was irrelevant to whether he knowingly or intentionally refused to identify himself under the statute. Accordingly, affirms the judgment and suspended sentence. Appellant’s attorneys: Talisha R. Griffin; Timothy J. Burns. Appellee’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
At least three bills this state legislative session stem from conversations previously had at the city level that didn’t work out the way stakeholders and the council’s super-minority GOP caucus wanted.
The attorney general would enforce the wage garnishment and home protection provisions, and would have to establish a complaint process for patients to file against medical creditors and debt collectors.
The suit was filed Thursday in Miami federal court by Trump, his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization, which manages the president’s real estate holdings.
Homeland Security and other federal agencies have expanded their ability to collect, share and analyze personal data, thanks to a web of agreements with local, state, federal and international agencies, plus contracts with tech companies and data brokers.
While Faegre Drinker partner Brittney Yocum had a rather traditional trajectory from law school to her career, she was in for an unexpected twist when she was found herself working in a corporate group at her first firm, igniting her passion for mergers and acquisition work.
Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Estate of Beverly K. Webster, Deceased; Christopher D. Webster v. Fred William Webster, Christina Kay Webster, and Katie Doades, individually and as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Beverly K. Webster
24A-ES-2788
Civil. Appeal from the Daviess Circuit Court, Judge Gregory A. Smith. Affirms the trial court’s orders enforcing a mediated settlement agreement resolving a will contest and estate disputes and awarding attorney fees. Holds the settlement agreement governing distribution of estate assets was ambiguous as to the scope of “all real estate” and, after considering extrinsic evidence including the decedent’s will and related agreements, the trial court did not err in interpreting the agreement to apply to 32.035 acres rather than all estate real estate. Further holds the agreement did not invalidate the decedent’s will or its specific devises, and the probate court’s approval of the compromise did not adjudicate the merits or set aside the will. Concludes Christopher Webster breached multiple provisions of the settlement agreement by failing to make required payments, dismiss the will contest, and comply with payment obligations, while Fred William Webster complied. Affirms the award of attorney fees to Fred William Webster as caused by Christopher Webster’s breach and affirms closure of the estate. Appellant’s attorneys: Adam R. Doerr and Kevin D. Koons, Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP; Lucas John Rowe, The Rowe Law Firm. Appellee’s attorneys: Kathryn E. DeWeese and Ryan M. Heeb, Bunger & Robertson.
The suit cited unidentified whistleblowers who the lawsuit claims have discovered that WhatsApp staff could send an electronic request to the company’s engineers asking for messages from a specific user ID.