ILNews

Opinions Aug. 12, 2010

August 12, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT