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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT