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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT