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

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT