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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT