ILNews

Opinions Dec. 27, 2013

December 27, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Dawn Marie Adams v. James Gregory Adams
13-1636
Civil. Reverses District Court denial of creditor Dawn Marie Adams’ bankruptcy court claim against her former husband and business partner, James Gregory Adams. The bankruptcy court claims were previously adjudicated in state courts and the doctrine of issue preclusion prevented the bankruptcy court from rehearing those issues. Remanded for proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of M.S. (A Child Alleged in Need of Services), and K.S., (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services
67A04-1305-JC-212
Juvenile. Affirms placement of M.S. with father who lives out-of-state and approval of the Department of Child Services’ petition to dismiss CHINS proceedings. The best interest of the child were served by placement with father and DCS’s efforts at reunifying the family were reasonable, Chief Judge Margret Robb wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Michael Barnes. Judge Elaine Brown concurred in a separate opinion that said M.S.’s interests would have been best served had DCS continued monitoring father’s compliance with court terms for a period of time.

State of Indiana v. Frank Greene
49A02-1303-PC-228
Post conviction. Affirms grant of post-conviction relief from a conviction of Class B felony criminal confinement and remands to the trial court with instructions to resentence Greene on the conviction as a Class D felony.  

In Re the Matter of R.K.: A Child Alleged to be a Child in Need of Services, A.K. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
31A01-1307-JC-310
Juvenile. Reverses juvenile court order awarding child custody to father, R.K. Sr., holding that the court abused its discretion by modifying custody without a formal evidentiary hearing. Vacates the modification order and remands for an evidentiary hearing on the modification petition.

DeWayne Nalls v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1306-CR-281
Criminal. Affirms concurrent sentences of 35 years for conviction of Class A felony attempted murder and 10 years for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, but vacates as illegal a separate five-year enhancement for the firearm charge.  

Cleverly Lockhart v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A02-1304-CR-384
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s denial of a petition to file a belated notice of appeal of four counts of child molesting and remands for proceedings.

Clarian Health Partners, Inc., d/b/a Methodist Hospital v. Jessica Sprunger, as next best friend of James Daniel Sprunger, Minor (NFP)
49A02-1211-CT-943
Civil tort/medical malpractice. Finds the trial court erred in denying Clarian’s motion to correct error after a jury award of $500,000 in favor of James Sprunger. The court also abused its discretion in instructing the jury. Remanded for proceedings.

Virginia Davis v. Indiana State Board of Nursing (NFP)
49A05-1304-PL-187
Civil plenary. Affirms Indiana State Board of Nursing’s license revocation.

In Re the Estate of Ruby Shuler Blankenbaker Botkins, Deceased, Mark Allen Shuler and David Lee Shuler v. Estate of George Botkins by Larry Botkins (NFP)
22A01-1307-ES-337
Estate. Affirms probate court’s entry of final accounting.

Jamar Perkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1306-CR-551
Criminal. Affirms conviction of felony murder.

John D. May v. State of Indiana (NFP)
28A05-1307-PC-320
Post conviction. Affirms denial of post-conviction relief from a conviction of Class C felony possession of methamphetamine while in possession of a firearm.

Darrell McNary v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1211-PC-607
Post conviction. Affirms denial of relief from a conviction of Class B felony dealing cocaine.

Brandon White v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1304-CR-188
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony criminal recklessness.

Bonnie Shipley v. Anonymous Doctor A and Anonymous Hospital C (NFP)
40A04-1304-PL-184
Civil plenary/malpractice. Affirms grant of summary judgment in favor of Anonymous Doctor A and Anonymous Hospital C.

James E. Britt, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1304-CR-152
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony possession of marijuana and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.

Ron Rose v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1306-PC-272
Post conviction. Reverses denial of a petition for relief from a conviction of Class B felony criminal deviate conduct, holding that the court clearly erred in imposing a lifelong requirement that Ron Rose register as a sexually violent predator rather than as a sex offender. Rose proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he didn’t understand that aspect of his guilty plea, and he had specifically rejected that provision when discussing the plea agreement with his attorney beforehand. Remanded for proceedings.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  2. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  3. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  4. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  5. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

ADVERTISEMENT