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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT