Opinions Aug. 10, 2010

August 10, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jermarcus Robinson
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge Theresa L. Springmann.
Criminal. Affirms conviction of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The District Court correctly refused to suppress the cocaine police officers pulled from Robinson’s buttocks after a traffic stop. The officer wasn’t satisfied with his initial effort to pat down Robinson and was justified to return to finish the job within the bounds outlined in Terry.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joey Wilson v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Affirms convictions of receiving stolen auto parts as a Class C felony and driving while suspended as a Class A misdemeanor. Wilson waived for review his argument that the trial court erred in allowing the state to amend the charging information on the day before his trial was to begin. He failed to request a continuance to prepare for his defense. Wilson also failed to prove that the admission of his unredacted BMV record made it impossible for him to receive a fair trial.

Indiana Spine Group v. Pilot Travel Centers
Civil. Reverses dismissal by the Full Worker’s Compensation Board of ISG’s claim pursuant to Indiana Code Section 22-3-3-27. The two-year statute of limitations in that statue doesn’t apply. Remands for determination on the merits of ISG’s application for adjustment of claim for provider fee.

City of Indianapolis v. Cynthia Hicks on behalf of and as next friend of Jada Richards, a minor
Civil tort. Affirms nunc pro tunc order granting Hicks’ motion to correct error and reinstating her negligence suit brought against the City of Indianapolis on behalf of her minor child. The city waived any challenge based on the magistrate’s lack of authority to sign the order by not objecting until after time for ruling on the motion to correct error expired. The CCS entries provide a sufficient basis to later issue the order. The grant of the motion to correct error wasn’t an abuse of discretion because the city didn’t show noncompliance with the tort claim notice requirements of the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

Ryan Armstrong v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and Class A misdemeanors possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia.

Roosevelt Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Timothy A. Stevens v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for Class C felonies forgery, and fraud on a financial institution, and three counts of Class D felony theft.

Thompson Thrift Construction Inc. v. Bank of Indiana, N.A. (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment for Bank of Indiana in Thompson Thrift Construction’s attempt to foreclose its mechanic’s lien on a parcel of real estate on which the bank held three mortgages.

Indiana Spine Group v. Scenic Hills Care Center (NFP)
Civil. Reverses dismissal by the Worker’s Compensation Board of ISG’s application for adjustment of claim for provider fee. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Spine Group v. All Seasons Holdings (NFP)
Civil. Reverses dismissal by the Worker’s Compensation Board of ISG’s application for adjustment of claim for provider fee. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?