ILNews

Opinions Aug. 30, 2012

August 30, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
Virgil Hall III v. Michael Zenk, superintendent
11-3911
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. Judge Jon E. DeGuilio.
Civil. Vacates the grant of Hall’s habeas petition and remands for a hearing to determine whether Hall was prejudiced by extraneous information that reached his jury.

Thursday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Sung Park v. Indiana University School of Dentistry, et al.
11-1933, 11-2109
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms dismissal for failure to state a claim in Park’s suit alleging equal protection and due process violations and claims for state law breach of contract. She has no state law claim for breach of contract, and Park has not identified a protectable property interest.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Dana Young v. State of Indiana
49A02-1201-JM-18
Juvenile miscellaneous. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor failure to ensure school attendance. Young was adequately advised of and waived her right to a jury trial.

Lane Alan Schrader Trust as Trustee under the Trust Agreement dated 16th day of November, 1999, and known as Lane Alan Schrader Self-Declaration of Trust v. Larry Gilbert and Nancy J. Malecki
75A04-1112-PL-676
Civil plenary. Reverses and remands to the trial court with instructions to enter a new order consistent with this opinion. The trial court did not err by concluding that the legal survey was not conducted through the use of good surveying practices, but did err by imposing the two previous surveys.

Peabody Energy Corp., Peabody Coal Company, LLC, and Black Beauty Coal Company v. Richard F. Roark, Beelman Truck Co., and North American Capacity Insurance Co.
14A01-1112-CT-555
Civil tort. Reverses summary judgment in favor of NAC and against Peabody regarding whether Peabody is an insured under the NAC policy. Roark was injured because of Peabody’s sole negligence, and his injuries arose out of his employer Beelman’s operations. Affirms summary judgment that Beelman did not breach the master performance agreement entered into by Beelman and Peabody. Remands for further proceedings.

F.D., G.D., and T.D. b/n/f J.D. and M.D.; J.D. and M.D., Individually v. Indiana Dept. of Family Services, Vanderburgh Co. Office of Family & Social Services, Evansville Police Dept., et al.

82A01-1109-CT-432
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment in favor of DCS and the police department for DCS’ and the police department’s failure to inform parents J.D. and M.D. of their daughter’s molestation. Finds the police department is not a proper party to this case. Indiana Code 31-33-18-4, the statute the parents say gives rise to DCS’ duty to notify them of their daughter’s molestation, does not confer a private right of action. Judge Crone concurs in part and dissents in part; Judge Bradford concurs in part, dissents in part, and concurs in result.

Michael Kern v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1108-MI-903
Miscellaneous. Affirms denial of Kern’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Keith Allen Abell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1202-CR-77
Criminal. Affirms aggregate 36-year sentence for various convictions, including Class B felony attempted rape and Class B felony attempted criminal deviate conduct.

Leroy Hall v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A04-1202-PC-68
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Chris B. Davis v. Rhonda S. Davis (NFP)
54A01-1201-DR-24
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of Chris Davis’ petition to modify custody.

Danielle Kelly v. State of Indiana (NFP)
30A01-1112-CR-584
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress.

In the Matter of the Commitment of D.W. v. Wishard Health Services Midtown Mental Health (NFP)
49A02-1201-MH-13
Mental health. Affirms temporary involuntary commitment to mental health facility.

Tommy Goldman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
31A01-1202-CR-75
Criminal. Affirms sentence imposed following probation revocation.
 

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT