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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT