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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT