ILNews

  • Home

Opinions Aug. 12, 2010

August 12, 2010
Keywords
Opinions
Back to TopE-mailPrint

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Frank McAllister v. Jerry L. Price, in his individual capacity
10-1213
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen.
Civil. Affirms denial of summary judgment for police officer Price, who claimed qualified immunity. There are genuine issues of material fact about whether Price violated McAllister’s clearly established constitutional rights. McAllister alleges that Price violated his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force to remove McAllister from his car after suffering a diabetic episode that resulted in the crash.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Vicky James, Michael Soja, et al.
71A03-1002-CT-104
Civil tort. Affirms order refusing to set aside a default judgment in favor of Soja and James on James’ complaint asserting product liability and negligence against Sears. There is no evidence of excusable neglect. Judge Kirsch dissents.  

Ernest L. Cleary v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1272
Criminal. Affirms determination that Cleary has the ability to pay restitution. Reverses order for restitution for the van’s loss of use. Remands with instructions.

Jerry H. Guffey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A05-0911-CR-624
Criminal. Affirms convictions of felony murder, and Class D felonies auto theft and aiding, inducing, or causing arson.

Kimberly N. Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1001-CR-8
Criminal. Revises sentence following guilty plea to two counts of Class D felony battery. Remands with instructions.

Cynthia Ingling and Thomas Grose v. Melissa Grose (NFP)
20A04-1001-ES-25
Estate, supervised. Reverses setting of plaintiffs’ will contest bond at $10,000. Remands for reinstatement of plaintiffs’ claim.

In re the Guardianship of H.W.; R.R. v. R.B. (NFP)
07A01-1003-GU-112
Guardianship. Affirms denial of R.R.’s Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6) motion to set aside a consent order awarding guardianship of her child to maternal grandmother.

Mark W. Phillips v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1001-CR-41
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for Class C felony child molesting.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of L.P.; H.P. v. Tippecanoe County DCS (NFP)
79A02-0912-JV-1215
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Robtavious Collins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1001-CR-99
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony possession of heroin within 1,000 feet of school property.

Roger Hendrickson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-0912-CR-1255
Criminal. Affirms conviction of interference with reporting of a crime as a Class A misdemeanor.

William Young v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1001-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony criminal recklessness.

T.D.J. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1001-JV-78
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for committing what would be Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct if committed by an adult.

Eugene and L. Anita Hurt v. Estate of Eulalia May, et al. (NFP)
48A02-0912-CV-1248
Civil. Affirms judgment in favor of the estate in its action to foreclose against the Hurts on a real estate contract.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVANCED SEARCH
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. Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.

  2. they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.

  3. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  4. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  5. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

ADVERTISEMENT