ILNews

Opinions Aug. 28, 2012

August 28, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Angela M. Farrell v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
11-3589
Civil. Reverses District Court’s affirmation of the decision to deny disability insurance benefits. The Social Security Administration Appeals Council did not follow its own regulations which require it to consider “new and material evidence.” Also finds the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity determination is based on an incomplete assessment of the record. Remands for further proceedings.

David Schepers, et al. v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction
11-3834
Criminal/sex offender registry. Reverses and remands to the District Court a grant of summary judgment in favor of the DOC, holding that its new procedures to allow current prisoners to challenge information in their pending listing in the Sex and Violent Offender Registry failed to provide any process for registrants who are not incarcerated.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions prior to IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

James T. Mitchell v. 10th and The Bypass, LLC, and Elway, Inc.
53A01-1112-PL-593
Civil plenary. Affirms trial court’s vacation of partial summary judgment in favor of Mitchell, holding that the court properly exercised its discretion when new evidence was tendered during an interlocutory appeal.

Anthony Mark Sewell v. State of Indiana
73A01-1112-CR-609
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s conviction of a Class D felony sex offender residency offense, rejecting ex post facto arguments.

Gunther Kranz and Carol Kranz v. Meyers Subdivision Property Owners Association, Inc.,Christopher Bartoszek, and Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources
75A03-1112-PL-577
Civil plenary/rehearing. Reaffirms its prior ruling, that the Natural Resources Commission has jurisdiction to make property-rights decisions necessary to issue permits; that the NRC properly interpreted its rule; that the evidence supports the NRC’s ruling; and there was no unconstitutional taking of the Kranzes’ property.

FLM, LLC, and Daimler Chrysler Corp., n/k/a Chrysler LLC v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company
49A02-0902-CV-127
Civil Plenary. Reverses and remands the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, finding language in an insurance policy to be ambiguous.
 
Ann Rachelle Johnson v. Dr. A., Dr. B., and Medical Provider
90A05-1109-PL-487
Civil plenary. Dismisses Johnson’s appeal of a trial court order that required a physician retained as her expert witness to execute a release indemnifying one of his prior employers from liability that may arise for the inadvertent disclosure of confidential information. The court held that Johnson does not yet face actual prejudice from the trial court’s order.

Jamar Washington v. State of Indiana
49A02-1202-CR-79
Criminal. Affirms and remands convictions of Class D felony battery, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, ordering the court to correct the abstract of judgment to accurately reflect the conviction of resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor rather than a Class D felony.

Terrell Hawkins v. State of Indiana
49A04-1201-CR-12
Criminal. Affirms denial of request for educational credit time. The 2011 amendment that ended state funding for educational expenses of inmates convicted of a felony and confined in a penal facility is not an ex post facto law nor did it violate Hawkins’ federal or state constitutional rights.

K.W. v. State of Indiana
49A02-1201-JV-9
Juvenile. Reverses juvenile court’s adjudication as a delinquent child, holding that a student who pulled away from a school resource officer attempting to handcuff him did not commit the equivalent of Class D felony resisting law enforcement because the officer was not acting as a law enforcement officer at the time and the elements of resisting law enforcement had not been met.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel.: T.V. (Minor child) and M.M. (Father) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
48A02-1112-JT-1178
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of M.S. (Minor Child), Child in Need of Services; M.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
49A02-1201-JC-26
Juvenile. Affirms trial court determination of child in need of services.

Donald E. Wrobel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1204-CR-180
Criminal. Affirms 30-year sentence for conviction of two counts of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor and being a habitual offender.

Kenneth Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1112-CR-1110
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.
 
David D. West v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A02-1202-CR-146
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class C felony child exploitation and two counts of Class D felony possession of child pornography.

Bradley Berry v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1201-CR-40
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Londale D. Madison v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1203-CR-109
Criminal. Affirms Class C felony conviction of burglary.

William Bruce v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A05-1112-CR-671
Criminal. Affirms two Class A felony convictions of child molesting.

Steven Wayne Minor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
03A05-1111-CR-586
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D domestic battery.

Gerald W. Town v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A04-1112-CR-675
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Class D felony battery.

Gregory C. Walbridge v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (NFP)
02A03-1112-CC-589
Collections. Affirms trial court’s judgment for Morgan Chase Bank.

In the Matter of the Adoption of C.E.H., minor; W.S. and E.H. v. J.T.C. and S.L.C. (NFP)
29A05-1111-AD-683
Adoption. Affirms trial court grant of J.T.C. and S.L.C.’s adoption petition.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT