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. @ President Snow, like they really read these comments or have the GUTS to show what is the right thing to do. They are just worrying about planning the next retirement party, the others JUST DO NOT CARE about what is right. Its the Good Ol'Boys - they do not care about the rights of the mother or child, they just care about their next vote, which, from what I gather, the mother left the state of Indiana because of the domestic violence that was going on through out the marriage, the father had three restraining orders on him from three different women, but yet, the COA judges sent a strong message, go ahead men put your women in place, do what you have to do, you have our backs... I just wish the REAL truth could be told about this situation... Please pray for this child and mother that God will some how make things right and send a miracle from above.

  2. I hear you.... Us Christians are the minority. The LGBTs groups have more rights than the Christians..... How come when we express our faith openly in public we are prosecuted? This justice system do not want to seem "bias" but yet forgets who have voted them into office.

  3. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  4. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  5. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

ADVERTISEMENT