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. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT