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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT