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.














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.