ILNews

Opinions Aug. 29, 2011

August 29, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
William Padula, administrator of the estate of Jerome Clement v. Timothy Leimbach, et al.
10-3395
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment for defendants, which include the City of East Chicago Police Department, on Padula’s suit for wrongful arrest, excessive force, failure to train officers, and condoning the use of excessive force, and the remand of state law claims to state court. The officers had probable cause to arrest Clement because they believed him to be intoxicated, the officers’ use of force was not excessive, and Padula’s claims of failure to adequately train and supervise officers and for condoning and ratifying excessive force fail.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Steve Reed and Lee Ann Reed v. City of Evansville and Evansville Sewer & Water Utility
82A05-1012-PL-768
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for the City of Evansville and the Evansville Sewer & Water Utility. None of the city’s supplemental evidence needs to be stricken, a question of fact remains as to whether the Reeds provided timely notice of their tort claims, the city isn’t otherwise entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Reeds’ claims, and the city’s motion to strike portions of the Reeds’ brief in opposition to summary judgment and supporting affidavits was properly denied. Remands for further proceedings.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of D.D., J.J., and K.J.; E.J. v. I.D.C.S.
10A04-1011-JT-748
Juvenile. Reverses involuntary termination of mother E.J.’s parental rights. The Clark County DCS failed to satisfy the six-month statutory mandate of Ind. Code. 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(A), and the trial court committed reversible error in granting CCDCS’ involuntary termination petitions. Remands for further proceedings.

Danny R. Kitchen, Jr. v. Rebecca Kitchen (deceased), Michael Lake and Shelly Lake

27A04-1101-DR-14
Domestic relation. Reverses order denying Kitchen’s motion for relief from judgment from the trial court’s order granting visitation to Michael and Shelly Lake, the maternal aunt and uncle of Danny’s minor child, K.K. Appellate court adheres to the limitation of statutes and caselaw conferring standing only to parents, grandparents, and step-parents. Remands for further proceedings.

Ronnie Q. Henderson v. State of Indiana

20A03-1102-PC-108
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief. The search of Henderson’s vehicle was valid under New York v. Belton and the Indiana Supreme Court’s interpretation of Belton. Arizona v. Gant does not apply retroactively to Henderson’s case.

Lonnie T. Bonds v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-PC-124
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

James A. Falk v. State of Indiana (NFP)
77A04-1102-CR-127
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft.

Daniel J. Reed v Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. (NFP)
38A02-1007-MI-845
Miscellaneous. Affirms order denying Reed’s motion to correct error.

T.L.M. v. V.M. (NFP)
49A02-1008-DR-930
Domestic relation. Affirms denial of father T.L.M.’s verified petition for modification of custody.

Randall E. Lesh v. State of Indiana (NFP)
35A02-1103-CR-282
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class D felony resisting law enforcement.

Charles R. Sparks v. State of Indiana (NFP)

10A04-1012-CR-794
Criminal. Affirms convictions of six counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor.

Jeffrey Brooks v. Henry and Iva McNeal (NFP)

45A03-1101-CT-25
Civil tort. Affirms summary judgment for the McNeals in Brooks’ suit following injuries he allegedly sustained after falling off a ladder on property owned by the McNeals.

Ricky C. Newman v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1102-CR-134
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felony operating a vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life.

Terry L. Holmes, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1103-PC-284
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Willie Sims v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A04-1102-CR-123
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Christopher Huston v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A02-1101-CR-30
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief and Class D felony pointing a firearm.

David Newton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1101-CR-10
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for expungement.

Arturo A. Ortiz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A04-1103-CR-114
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for jail time credit.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court dismissed one case on petition for transfer for the week ending Aug. 26, 2011.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My husband left me and the kids for 2 years, i did everything humanly possible to get him back i prayed i even fasted nothing worked out. i was so diver-stated, i was left with nothing no money to pay for kids up keep. my life was tearing apart. i head that he was trying to get married to another lady in Italy, i look for urgent help then i found Dr.Mack in the internet by accident, i was skeptical because i don’t really believe he can bring husband back because its too long we have contacted each other, we only comment on each other status on Facebook and when ever he come online he has never talks anything about coming back to me, i really had to give Dr.Mack a chance to help me out, luckily for me he was God sent and has made everything like a dream to me, Dr.Mack told me that everything will be fine, i called him and he assured me that my Husband will return, i was having so many doubt but now i am happy,i can’t believe it my husband broke up with his Italian lady and he is now back to me and he can’t even stay a minute without me, all he said to me was that he want me back, i am really happy and i cried so much because it was unbelievable, i am really happy and my entire family are happy for me but they never know whats the secret behind this…i want you all divorce lady or single mother, unhappy relationship to please contact this man for help and everything will be fine i really guarantee you….if you want to contact him you can reach him through dr.mac@yahoo. com..,

  2. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  3. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  4. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  5. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

ADVERTISEMENT