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

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. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

ADVERTISEMENT