Opinions Aug. 28, 2012

August 28, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Angela M. Farrell v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
Juvenile. Affirms trial court determination of child in need of services.

Donald E. Wrobel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft.
David D. West v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

Londale D. Madison v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms Class C felony conviction of burglary.

William Bruce v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms two Class A felony convictions of child molesting.

Steven Wayne Minor v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D domestic battery.

Gerald W. Town v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
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)
Adoption. Affirms trial court grant of J.T.C. and S.L.C.’s adoption petition.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?