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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT