ILNews

Opinions Aug. 9, 2012

August 9, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Danny R. Richards v. Michael Mitcheff, et al.
11-3227
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Civil. Reverses dismissal of Richards’ lawsuit alleging the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by indifference to his serious medical condition and remands for further proceedings. The suit could not be properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c) because Indiana allows the statute of limitations to be tolled while one is incapacitated, which is what Richards argued as to why he didn’t file his complaint within the applicable time period.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Guydell Watson v. State of Indiana
48A04-1107-CR-443
Criminal. Affirms conviction of operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol content of at least 0.08 percent but less than 0.15 percent, a Class C misdemeanor. There was no abuse of discretion in denying Watson public funds with which to hire an expert witness because he didn’t meet his burden of demonstrating a need for appointment of an expert. There was no abuse of discretion in instructing the jury on operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a Class C misdemeanor.

Daniel Sandlin v. Tamara Sandlin
29A02-1110-DR-969
Domestic relation. Reverses order modifying child support and remands with instructions for the trial court to review the evidence presented without the need to hold an additional hearing and amend its order modifying child support as directed. The trial court correctly did not impute income to Tamara Sandlin, but improperly failed to calculate her current income based on the evidence, and improperly failed to explicitly order that Daniel Sandlin cease paying to her a clothing allowance. Based on the parties’ apparent appellate agreement, Daniel Sandlin’s parenting time credit should be substantially reduced.

Todd Slavin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1111-CR-569
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

James A. Carr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
25A04-1112-CR-650
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Nicole (Mooney) Thompson v. Terry Mooney, Jr. (NFP)
41A05-1201-DR-48
Domestic relation. Affirms order regarding the custody of T.M.

Gregory A. Smyser v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A01-1112-CR-586
Criminal. Affirms order imposing balance of previously suspended sentence upon revocation of probation.

Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Katherine Linton-Waltman (NFP)
49A02-1203-MI-237
Miscellaneous. Affirms order denying the BMV’s “intervenor’s motion for relief from judgment” in an action involving the grant to Linton-Waltman of a restricted driver’s license because of a hardship.

Robert Oldham v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1106-CR-633
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

Tina Glover v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (NFP)
15A01-1107-MI-316
Miscellaneous. Dismisses Glover’s appeal of the order dismissing her petition for judicial review with prejudice.

Marquise T. Holmes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A03-1110-CR-490
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies battery and neglect of a dependent.

Anthony W. Smith, Bobby J. McDaniel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A04-1112-CR-662
Criminal. Affirms attempted murder convictions and sentences of Smith and McDaniel.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: V.B. and Y.B. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP)
49A02-1111-JT-1133
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT