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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT