Articles

Opinions June 22, 2023

Court of Appeals of Indiana
In The Matter of L.S., a Child in Need of Services, J.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
22A-JC-2822
Juvenile CHINS. Dismisses father J.C.’s appeal of the Vanderburgh Superior Court’s denial of his motion to modify the placement of his child, L.S. Finds father’s notice of appeal indicates that the order denying the modification is a final appealable order, but it is not. Also finds father did not seek an interlocutory appeal. Finally, finds the Court of Appeals lacks appellate jurisdiction.

Read More

Opinions June 21, 2023

Indiana Supreme Court
Kathryn Davidson v. State of Indiana, et al.
22S-CT-318
Civil tort. Affirms the Monroe Circuit Court’s judgment dismissing Kathryn Davidson’s lawsuit with prejudice and denying Davidson’s motions to correct error and to amend her complaint. Finds claim preclusion does not apply but issue preclusion does, and the trial court was correct in dismissing Davidson’s action on the latter ground. Also finds the trial court was not obliged to review the Rule 12 motions as motions under Rule 56. Finally, finds the trial court was entitled to dismiss the action with prejudice, so it did not violate Davidson’s due process rights.

Read More

Opinions June 19, 2023

United States of America v. John Holden
22-3160
Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. Judge Robert L. Miller Jr.
Criminal. Reversed the district court’s judgment and reinstated the criminal charge against John Holden. Finds a truthful answer to the question “are you under indictment?” can be material to the propriety of a firearms sale, whether or not all possible applications of §922(n) comport with the Second Amendment.

Read More

Opinions June 16, 2023

United States of America v. James E. Snyder
21‐2986
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Judge Matthew Kennelly.
Criminal. Affirms James Snyder’s convictions of bribery and obstructing federal revenue laws. Finds Snyder’s Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights weren’t violated when the government got access to his email accounts. Also finds prosecution of the obstruction charge wasn’t barred by the statute of limitations and that there was sufficient evidence. Finally, finds Snyder’s rights to a speedy trial weren’t violated by the delay between the first and second trials for bribery, that 18 U.S.C. § 666 doesn’t require evidence of a prior quid pro quo agreement, and that there was sufficient evidence for conviction.

Read More