Opinions June 25, 2024

  • 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 opinion was published after IL’s deadline Monday:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Travis Montgomery
23-1976
Criminal. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Chief Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Vacates Travis Montgomery’s sentence of 235 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release for distribution of 50 or more grams of methamphetamine. Finds that the court knows only that Montgomery accessed a storage unit to carry out drug transactions three times and that an unidentified individual accessed the unit many more times during the same period for some unknown purpose. Also finds the government needs to show more than three transactions tied to the storage unit in a one-month period to satisfy its burden to trigger the two-level sentencing enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(12). Remands for further proceedings.

Tuesday opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
Corey Mirabal v. State of Indiana
23A-CR-1451
Criminal. Affirms Corey Mirabal’s conviction for murder in Marion Superior Court. Finds that the totality of this evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s finding that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Mirabal committed the offense of murder. Also finds Mirabal’s argument regarding the quality of the police investigation is simply a request to reweigh the evidence.

Shorewood Forest Utilities, Inc. v. Robert A. Welsh and Harris Welsh & Lukmann
23A-PL-2342
Civil plenary. Affirms the Porter Superior Court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of attorney Robert A. Welsh and his law firm, Harris Welsh and Lukmann, on Shorewood Forest Utilities Inc.’s legal malpractice claim. Finds Shorewood has not identified a basis for a fiduciary relationship aside from the attorney-client relationship as memorialized by the parties’ legal services agreement and Shorewood’s breach of fiduciary duty claim is merely derivative of its legal malpractice claim.

 

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 }}