United States v. Kramer
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
225 F.3d 847 (2000)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Robert Kramer (defendant) was a Minnesota resident who worked as an interstate truck driver. In 1980, Kramer was temporarily working in Indiana and had a brief sexual relationship with an Indiana resident, Janice Jacobs. Jacobs subsequently had a child and claimed that Kramer was the child’s father. Jacobs attempted to get Kramer to pay child support through the Indiana court system. Kramer never appeared at any of the court proceedings. In 1982, the Indiana court established Kramer’s paternity by default and ordered him to pay $25 per week in child support. Kramer made sporadic attempts to contest the default judgment and never paid any of the ordered support, in spite of various legal efforts by Jacobs and the Indiana courts to enforce the order. In 1998, Kramer was indicted under a federal statute, the Child Support Recovery Act (CSRA), 18 U.S.C. § 228, for willful failure to pay child support due in another state. Kramer moved for a judgment of acquittal, alleging that the underlying Indiana child-support order was invalid because he had never received service of process in that matter and that the state court therefore did not have personal jurisdiction over him. The court refused to grant Kramer’s motion. Kramer was convicted, sentenced to one year of probation, and ordered to pay $19,750 in restitution. Kramer appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ripple, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.