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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT