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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT