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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT