ILNews

Opinions Dec. 22, 2011

December 22, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
M.B., by his parents and next friends, Damian Berns and Amy Berns v. Hamilton Southeastern Schools and Hamilton-Boone-Madison Special Services
10-3096
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of the schools on the Berns’ suit that the schools violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the provisions relating to special education in the Indiana Administrative Code by failing to provide M.B. with a free appropriate public education. There was nothing unreasonable about the determination by the hearing officer, the Board of Special Education Appeals, and the District Court in finding that M.B. was making progress under his individualized education program. The Berns are also not entitled to reimbursement for the costs to place M.B. in a learning center or for attorney fees.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Carl A. Staples v. State of Indiana
48A05-1106-CR-298
Criminal. Affirms trial court’s determination that Staples committed a crime of domestic violence and is now precluded from possessing a firearm in the future. It was reasonable to infer from the facts of the case that Staples and Tamica Burnett were, or had been, in a dating relationship.

James Lowery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A05-1106-CR-296
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to manufacture of more than 10 pounds of marijuana as a Class C felony.

Gary J. Harrison v. Linda Turner and Deborah Hric (NFP)
46A05-1101-PL-46
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of nurses Turner and Hric.

Jeremy Dewayne Matheny v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A05-1105-CR-260
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

In the Matter of the Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of T.D.T., T.T.T., and M.T., and A.D.T. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
71A05-1103-JT-213
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of father’s parental rights.

Senior Market Development, LLC and Ahren Baumgart v. Titan Financial Group, LLC (NFP)
82A01-1103-PL-138
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment awarding Titan Financial Group attorney fees and expenses on the company’s complaint for breach of contract. Remands for an assessment of appellate attorney fees against Senior Market Development and Ahren Baumgart.

Katie Herrera v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1106-CR-286
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

Matthew P. Philbee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A05-1107-CR-340
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony child molesting, Class C felony child molesting, and Class D felony vicarious sexual gratification.

Stephen N. Kohlmeyer v. State of Indiana (NFP)
29A02-1105-CR-399
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle with ACE of 0.08 or more.

Dewayne A. Dunn v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1103-CR-160
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder.

Mary Lou Duff v. Shawn D. Duff and Rebecca Duff (NFP)
40A05-1012-PL-755
Civil plenary. Affirms ruling that Mary Lou Duff’s complaint to recover possession of personal property is barred under the principles of res judicata.

George Parker v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1104-CR-181
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class A felony dealing in cocaine.

R.S. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1106-JV-309
Juvenile. Affirms order committing R.S. to the Indiana Department of Correction.

Roy N. Viverette, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1105-CR-223
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to three counts of Class B felony burglary.

Nathaniel Bobo v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1105-CR-224
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony aggravated battery.

Curtis W. Birner v. State of Indiana (NFP)
52A02-1104-CR-462
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class C felonies carrying a handgun without a license and intimidation.

Valgene Royal v. State of Indiana (NFP)
64A04-1105-CR-283
Criminal. Dismisses appeal of the trial court’s denial of Royal’s motion for sentence modification.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of T.C. and K.N.; A.N. (Mother) and J.C. (Father) v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
72A01-1104-JT-249
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Nicole Nelson v. Review Board of Workforce Development and Madison Center, Inc. (NFP)
93A02-1105-EX-431
Agency appeal. Affirms dismissal of Nelson’s appeal to the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development on the grounds she didn’t timely file it.

Shawn Thomas v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A04-1105-CR-259
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion for withdrawal of guilty plea.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT