Opinions Aug. 9, 2012

August 9, 2012
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Danny R. Richards v. Michael Mitcheff, et al.
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
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
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)
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

James A. Carr v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms murder conviction.

Nicole (Mooney) Thompson v. Terry Mooney, Jr. (NFP)
Domestic relation. Affirms order regarding the custody of T.M.

Gregory A. Smyser v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms order imposing balance of previously suspended sentence upon revocation of probation.

Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Katherine Linton-Waltman (NFP)
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)
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to correct erroneous sentence.

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

Marquise T. Holmes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies battery and neglect of a dependent.

Anthony W. Smith, Bobby J. McDaniel v. State of Indiana (NFP)
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)
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit